[ale] [OT] rant - decadence in society - DRM

[Michael Trausch]

On 03/25/2011 12:16 AM, David Ritchie wrote:
> Another piece, IMO, is that there are more and more people who don't
> believe in a God. As a result, they are not fearful of divine
> punishment. I feel that such individuals may be just a little bit less
> restrained in these areas than those people who do worry about such
> things. They see more upside than downside - and since the moral
> calculation is surpressed and only an economic one remains, there is
> less restraint there.

I must say that I disagree vehemently on this point.  Allow me to 
explain why I say that (ironically, I was just a few moments ago having 
a very similar conversation with someone else).

Religion has *absolutely* nothing to do with any of this.  A belief in a 
diety (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with whether a person has the 
ability to critically think about whether their actions are right or 
wrong.  In fact, I can think of many situations where the ethical thing 
to do is directly opposed to the moral thing to do from a Christian 
standpoint.  Religious frameworks are something to never enter a 
discussion on "right" and "wrong", IMHO, because nearly every religious 
framework has something different to say on issue X for (almost) any 
value of X.  I therefore consider the questions of right and wrong to be 
something which cannot be suitably based on *any* religious framework 
(not just the Christian framework, but *any* framework).  Now I'll grant 
that for a Christian, all other diverging frameworks are typically 
considered to be "wrong", but that is a point that I will conveniently 
ignore since it's tangential at best to this particular thread (and for 
the rest of this message I will completely ignore all religious frameworks).

Whether an action is right or wrong from the viewpoint of an individual 
depends on the set of rules that they are using to assess such a 
question.  The *real* problem, IMHO, is that most people are either 
unable or unwilling (more on that in a moment) to apply critical 
thinking and reasoning to the decisions that they make and fail to truly 
assess what they are doing before they do it.  Think about it this way: 
why does someone steal an item from a store?  It could be because:

   * They do not know that it is wrong (maybe they are a child, or
     they have never been taught that it is wrong and why that is the
     case)

   * They think that the "good" that will result from the theft is
     something which outweighs the "badness" of the theft.

   * They think that the other party will suffer no real loss and
     therefore the action cannot be considered to be wrong.

   * They think that they are entitled.

   * They think that they are exempt from legal rules.

   * They think that it's fun.

   * They do not think at all.

It could be for other reasons, too.

Now, the way *I* gauge whether an action is "right" or "wrong" has 
nothing to do with what the Bible or the Torah or the Qur'an has to say 
about the issue.  Nothing at all.  For that matter, it has nothing to do 
with what our legal system has to say about it, as far as I am 
concerned:  our legal system is chock full of actions that are deemed to 
be illegal, but are not in any way wrong (unless you bring almost any 
religion into it).  For example, it is illegal to consume certain 
substances (the justification being that an individual will do harm to 
oneself by doing so).  It is similarly illegal in most jurisdictions to 
attempt to commit suicide (because someone in the government has decided 
that it is "wrong" to do so).

In fact, using any religious framework as a template for law has the 
effect of imposing a limited set of values held by (one or more) 
religions upon all people in the jurisdiction, whether or not they 
subscribe to that set of one or more religions that agree on the issue. 
  There are *still* laws which are on the books in some states even 
though the Supreme Court has ruled them to be unconstitutional and which 
are derived from at least one individual's (though frequently more) 
perception of a "rule" from a religious framework---that is, the 
government has made certain actions illegal not because they cause 
anyone harm, but because somewhere, one or more individuals (most likely 
"more") believe that the action is "wrong" or "immoral" given their own 
personal framework.

Teaching a person to fear punishment, jail, eternal damnation, or 
whatever else is no substitute for teaching someone logic, how to apply 
logic, and instilling a set of (truly!) universal axioms to go along 
with that logic.

As an example:  Is it wrong to stop the beating of a human heart?  If we 
look to the Christian framework, the answer is quite clear: thou shall 
not kill.  It doesn't say why, nor does it define under what conditions 
it would be permissible to break that commandment.  And in the general, 
average, everyday world, the answer is almost always "yes, it is wrong 
to stop the beating of a human heart."  There is an assumption that the 
stopping of a human heart causes some sort of harm.

However, what if the question is asked in the context of a person who is 
in the end stages of a fatal cancer?  Or, what about within the context 
of a person who has just suffered an injury so severe that it is a 
certainty that they will be dead in anywhere from a few minutes to a few 
hours?  What if, in either one of the previous contexts, that person 
asks for death to come sooner rather than later, knowing that they will 
die soon in either instance?  Is it then wrong to stop their heart?  Or 
does it, through the set of (admittedly exceedingly rare and 
corner-case) circumstances, become the right action to take because it 
is the action that will cause that person less harm?

Personally, I could not believe that any diety (assuming the presence 
thereof) that is fair (again, assuming and conditional on validity of 
last assumption) and just (again, assuming, yada yada) would look at 
such an action as a violation.

The more common example is that of self-defense:  is it wrong to defend 
yourself if the cost is the life of the person that you are defending 
yourself against?  I would say that it is not.  Of course, that depends 
on a lot of things, too.  Two more concrete examples on that.

Let's say that we have an individual who spent decades as a locksmith. 
Let's assume that they think they are on their front porch, and let's 
further assume that they have forgotten their keys.  Let's say that they 
know how to defeat the locks on your front door with a minimum of fuss 
and therefore that person then does.  They then enter the home, but find 
it unrecognizable.  They are disoriented, they are confused.  What is 
the correct action, then?  I would say that unless they do something 
further to indicate that they are an immediate threat to your person or 
property that the correct action would be to invite them in, give them a 
cup of tea, coffee, water, something, and call the police non-emergency 
number to tell them what has happened and that you think that you have a 
disoriented and potentially (legally) incompetent individual.  It would 
be wrong to press charges in such an instance, and it would be wrong to 
turn them away if they are truly disoriented.  Of course, then it could 
be a ruse of sort, but one really cannot afford to make that assumption 
without any proof:  any human with a conscience would forever feel guilt 
that perhaps they made the wrong assumption.

Now, let's say that we have an individual who forcefully busts your door 
down (property is thus already damaged, and this is obviously an 
aggressive move).  They are moving quickly and throughout, and you 
encounter them.  What do you do?  Do you defend yourself? 
Absofsckinglutely you do.  And legally speaking, if they have a gun (and 
thus pose an immediate perceived threat to your life, whether it has 
bullets or not) or if they come close enough to use a melee weapon then 
you absolutely have the right to defend yourself and your family through 
the use of deadly force if necessary.  I differ from the law's point of 
view slightly:  The moment that you aggressively cross my threshold, I 
assume nothing about whether or not the intent is to steal, to kill, or 
to do something else altogether.  I don't know about anyone else on this 
list, but if someone is in my house that is not supposed to be in my 
house and they've acquired that entry through an aggressive means, that 
seems enough to fully make me fearful and act to defend (or, of course, 
evade if defense is not possible).

What about the example of the theft of a loaf of bread?  A staving 
individual who has not eaten in days steals a loaf of bread from a 
retailer.  Is that action wrong?  Again, I probably differ from most 
people here; I would say that *yes*, it is wrong.  A person who is weak 
from starvation would clearly look it, and could ask for a loaf of bread 
from the store, anyone working for the store, or anyone else in the 
store.  On the *flip* side of the coin, I would also consider it wrong 
to deny a request from someone obviously in need if one is able to 
fulfill the request.

Another example would be those that stand out and about, loitering at 
things like the McDonald's drive-thru in the late hours of the night. 
Often they will ask for a dollar or a cigarette.  I will give a 
cigarette if asked, but I will never give the money.  I will offer to 
get them a meal, though.  Not surprisingly, most of those people refuse: 
  they aren't there because they're hungry.  They're there because they 
have found that they can convince people that they are hungry and to 
simply give them money, which they then use for other things.  If 
someone comes up to me and asks me for something that is a bare 
necessity, and I can afford to do so, I will simply purchase and give 
that to them.  I will never give up the money, even if I have cash in my 
wallet (a rare occurrence).  But I will not deprive another person of 
their need to eat or drink, either: I will help if I can.

In any case, it's late and I cannot possibly continue.  But I felt that 
much at least needed to be said.  If an action by an individual can only 
harm that particular individual, it cannot be considered to be wrong 
(exception being if the individual does not possess the mental faculty 
to be aware of his or her own action).

If an action by an individual causes harm to another individual, it is 
most likely wrong (of course there are multitudes of practical 
exceptions to that rule, such as performing CPR or abdominal thrusts on 
a person, which may injure that person [thus causing harm], but to the 
effect that the person may continue to live [thus vastly outweighing the 
harm done]).

If an action by an individual restricts the freedom of another 
individual (outside of contexts where such restriction is appropriate), 
it is most likely wrong.

If an action by an individual ends the life of another individual, it is 
most likely wrong (again with exceptions).

And of course, there will likely be people who disagree with some or all 
of what I have said, but them's my 2¢.

> A big part of the problem is that societies only
> work well when the bulk of people are self-regulating in their
> behavior - something that is becoming increasingly less common.

I think that this is simply because people do not think or because they 
feel entitled; that is, Hanlon's Razor.

	--- Mike