A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Clash of Kings II / Beauty and The Beast V

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

haaruk Nov 26th 2:01 PM
Sandor Clegane. To Damn or Redeem.

haaruk Nov 26th 2:25 PM
The last messages.

KAH
User ID: 9209903
Nov 26th 12:11 PM

Jeff;

Well, my definition of the terms 'individual approach' and 'societal approach' has changed a bit since we started out this discussion - but they have developed into what you describe, so I think we in essence are on the same page, yes.

The Pinochet example at least serves to show the 'muddling of the picture' I talked about in my last post. Did Pinochet think of himself as 'Savior of Chile'? Undoubtedly that was a _part_ of it, at least. Could it be that the enticement of being Chile's _leader_, the draw of power, had something to do with his choices (and the other were just , to an extent, excuses he made for himself)? Perhaps unconsciously? I'd say we cannot rule out that either. Such motives clearly opens for punishment.

But lacking the 'mind peeker', we cannot _know_ that Pinochet's motives were one thing or the other. And the individual approach would suggest that we take into consideration that Pinochet's motives _might_ have been pure, or based on misconceptions, or whatever. (Lacking the 'mind peeker', I guess we have to make some sort of estimate of the probability of the one motive or the other) In any case, accepting Pinochet's actions purely out of his possible lack of 'mens rea', creates a dangerous precedent. If we allow Pinochet to kill people because he _thinks_ that those people will kill even more people, then what? What if I said to myself; "Ronald Reagan as President of the US? A goddam cowboy sitting on our nuclear arsenal? HELL NO!". What if I honestly believed that Reagan would start a nuclear war (and I know quite a few people who dreaded his coming to power way back when, because of that)?
If I blow him down with my gun, can I walk away then? Can I get my sentence reduced? As it happens, Reagan _didn't_ start any such war, so your thoughts about it might be biased. Exchange Reagan for some future, unknown president. A
charismatic, aggressive fella. One who could be construed to be a bit unstable. Would I come clean if I blew him away? You make reference to Gregor and Hitler as having totally different moral sets, which of course is correct. But...does the fact that you actively _choose_ between different moral sets, necessarily make you aware that you're choosing the wrong one?

You go on to answer that very question when you highlight the problem with the perfect moral set - you disaggregate the moral set in to smaller parts, for instance murder of a four year old. This is something I had in mind too, and I think it is a good move. You say that any moral set that believes that murder of 4 year olds would be fundamentally evil. I agree with that too. But it still doesn't, in my mind, create the proper link in order to, philosophically speaking, pin moral guilt on a guy who is not aware that his moral set, or the relevant subgroup thereof, is
wrong/fundamentally evil. You say you would have no qualms to do so. I suppose that is because, like me, you have _empathy_. When hearing about
Hitler or Gregor, and their atrocities, you have _compassion_ for their victims, and you have _loathing_ for the perpetrator's actions. And it would be really tragic if we didn't. Likewise, when I said I would like to be able to impose guilt on these people, that is _equally_ born out of empathy. Well do I like to play the Devil's Advocate from time to time, but there are limits even to _my_ enthusiasm. I often think that I'm basically acting out as the Hitler-apologetic (I mean, _Hitler_, for fuck's sake!!! Is it even
remotely possible to get any lower?). I think; dammit, Kay-Arne, what are you _doing_? Bow out!!

And of course, I think of their victims, and I say to my self that it would be _so sweet_ if I could find the necessary philosophical justification to
pin moral guilt on them, _even_ if they aren't aware of the evil of their ways.

However, empathy and reason are only occasionally holding hands. I cannot lie to myself, and jump out of the discussion for something I don't recognize. If I want something more than a
functional_ reason for passing judgement, I must be able to believe in it fully. About us making judgements in everyday situations... we are only human.
We judge all the time, and we do not _always_ have the call to do so. We can all recognize the immorality of the act, and the moral set. But linking that and the moral guilt of the indivually...we _do_ that, generally, but question is, are we _justified_ in doing so? As you said yourself, these are incredibly tough issues, and I
don't think most people go through all this when they impose their own, private judgement on people.
Jeff
User ID: 0227464
Nov 26th 12:47 PM
I agree with your point about Pinochet. He had to be punished for what he did regardless of whether his motives were
relatively pure if only for deterrent sake. But I think his case is the easy one. It's Gregor and Hitler that are difficult. You ask a very important question; maybe its _the_ critical one we are discussing:"But...does the fact that you actively _choose_ between different moral sets, necessarily make you aware that you're choosing the wrong one?"

My response would be that most people don't "ever"
consciously choose a course they believe is morally "wrong", without justification, at the time they commit their action. So, under the individual approach, it seems to me that we can
rarely, if ever, impose moral guilt for a horrible act. That's why I think guilt is properly imposed at the point where a person makes the moral choice, regardless of whether they believe their choice to be "right" or "wrong". We are punishing
them for their nasty morality and the fact that they acted on it, not on whether they recognize that their morality is "wrong". I am punishing them _because_ the feelings of others don't
matter to them and because they acted on that moral set. Whether they understand that moral set to be "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. I can see some professor attacking this one the grounds that
"what makes you so sure your morality is correct?" But that smacks of moral relativism to me, and I don't accept that for reasons I think I stated earlier.

haaruk Nov 27th 8:31 AM
Does every decision that results in the death of another human being contain a moral component?

Jeff
User ID: 1578334 Nov 27th 10:13 AM
I would say not, though I suppose the term "results" is somewhat ambiguous because the degree of causation is undefined. Two examples.

1) Inadvertent caustion. I'm driving on a road, and someone is approaching on the wrong side of the road, directly at me. Had I not been there, they might have recovered and been able to steer back to their own side of the road. Instead, upon seeing me, they panic turn the wrong way, and go flying over a cliff. Did I "cause" the death? Thta depends on you definition of causation, but maybe we can at least say that the death would not have occured had I not been there. Guilt? No.

2) I'm sitting with my family in my house. Some guy breks in wielding a gun and says he's going to kill us all one at a time. He then shoots at me and I duck, so the bullet only grazes my head. I grab a knife, throw it at him, and he dies. Guilt? Nope.

Jeff
User ID: 1578334 Nov 27th 10:14 AM
I would say not, though I suppose the term "results" is somewhat ambiguous because the degree of causation is undefined. Two examples.

1) Inadvertent caustion. I'm driving on a road, and someone is approaching on the wrong side of the road, directly at me. Had I not been there, they might have recovered and been able to steer back to their own side of the road. Instead, upon seeing me, they panic turn the wrong way, and go flying over a cliff. Did I "cause" the death? Thta depends on you definition of causation, but maybe we can at least say that the death would not have occured had I not been there. Guilt? No.

2) I'm sitting with my family in my house. Some guy breks in wielding a gun and says he's going to kill us all one at a time. He then shoots at me and I duck, so the bullet only grazes my head. I grab a knife, throw it at him, and he dies. Guilt? Nope.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Nov 27th 10:21 AM
Jeff;

We've been through this before - I never disputed the absoluteness of morality. There is a set of absolute moral that is valid, and hence, everything deviating from this is plain wrong. The professor dude that suggested moral relativism would be wrong.

Neither have I disputed that punishment of wrongdoers would be prudent whatever their conception of having done right and wrong - if we did not, we might very well end up with consequences similar to those of a society governed by moral relativism. Clearly, this is not satisfactory, and and equally clearly, this is a _functional_ argument.

After all, can you blame a sociopath for being a sociopath, or ignore it if he can't be blamed?

If this is genetically conditioned, is it then fair to say that they _chose_ their lack of empathy, or that it is irrelevant whether they chose it or not?

Is it irrelevant if they recognize that their morality is wrong?

If you say yes to these questions (and by the look of the post above, it seems likely that you do), is this functionally based, or based on individual moral guilt?

In my opinion, it is functionally based all the way. In my opinion, to pin moral guilt on them, they would have to fully recognize that what they were doing was wrong, and then go ahead with it anyway.

In the following, I'm going to go out on a limb here. Please take no offense, but I'm going to assume a thing or two about your take on this whole thing, and the reasoning behind it.
You are, of course, free to disabuse me of any wrong notions I have in this respect. :o)

Quite a few posts back, you were saying (I'm probably paraphrasing here, but I think in essence it is correct. If not, tell me) that the ability to pin moral guilt on a perpetrator is _paramount_ in our justification to punish someone.

If this is one of your _axioms_, then it is easy to see that you believe the whole system would fall apart, if you do _not_ have the ability to pin moral guilt on perpetrators who are not aware of the wrongness of their actions.

If you believe that functional reasons are not enough to punish the perpetrator, then it is tempting to suspect you for believing that the need for awareness of the wrongness of the action _must be irrelevant_, and that you think this is _not_ a functional argument, because it is convenient to think so.

Note that I'm only saying this because you have failed, IMO, to bring up any _non-functional_ reasons for making the 'awareness' argument irrelevant. Protection of the innocent is a functional argument(and an honorable one at that).
Clearly, Gregor must be wiped out, as you would cut out a malevolent tumor.

I'm more and more thinking that we cannot base the
punishment justification on moral guilt alone, but
take the functional approach heavily into consideration as a valid base of justification, because of the obvious shortcomings of the individual approach.

But, I do believe that we cannot make use of the functional approach _solely_. We need the individual approach to curb it, so as to not going into excess. I.e.; we should take it into consideration if the perpetrator is an obvious nutcase.
We need, however, to be careful so as not to diminish the preventive value of punishment.

haaruk Nov 27th 10:50 AM
The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Moral Absolutism or Moral Relativism?

haaruk Nov 28th 1:12 AM
As a clarification. I agree with the act. I believed it saved hundreds of thousands of lives and millions of casualties that an invasion of the Japanese main islands would have incurred. The moral component has always been a source of debate for myself and others. Nevertheless perhaps the fundamental question of morality may be difficult to examine. Absolutism, Relativism, Reality. Is existence itself absolute or relativistic? Or is moral absolutism also a relativistic function of position and time?

Can an evil act only be forgiven by the individual or individuals upon whom it was enacted? Should such an act be forgiven?

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Nov 28th 7:31 AM
Well, strictly functionally speaking, I believe dropping the bomb over Hiroshima would be right.
It helped end the war that much quicker, thus saving hundreds of thousands of lives, probably a vast majority of them Japanese civilians.
Isolated, the nuclear bomb could be seen as just a really big bomb, and so it hardly matters for the dying if it's one big or thousand small bombs that kill you.

Furthermore, the dropping of the bomb showed that the nuke was _not_ just a really big bomb - we got the first indication that humanity in fact could eradicate itself. If it had not been used then, one must wonder if the super powers would have treated it with the care and respect which would seem prudent wrt such a weapon. The shockwave of Hiroshima probably went far beyond the city limits, in that respect.

There would, OTOH, be a lot of innocent children who died in that bombing. Should we not care about them? We should...but we should not be blind for the fact that this would have to be weighed against the pro reasons for dropping the bomb. One cannot see this isolated.

If we change focus to _Nagasaki_, however, I'm not convinced that it was moral at all.

As for forgiveness...it would be greatly arrogant for me to say that any of the individuals that suffered or lost relatives from the Hiroshima bombing should or should not forgive. I was not there. And hence it is not mine to forgive.

haaruk Nov 28th 9:31 AM
A true life scenario. A man commits a brutal act of rape. His victim is also brutally beaten. He is paroled after serving 14 years of a 30 year sentence. He says he repents his act and asks for forgiveness from both the young woman he savaged and society. The perpetrator since committing the heinous crime has not been in trouble with the law. The young woman is still in therapy and emotionally damaged by the ordeal. Should or can she forgive him and if she does not is his possible redemption forfeit.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Nov 28th 10:29 AM
Again, it is not for me to say that this or that one _should_ forgive anything. AFAICT, this is something that has been prevalent in certain religious communities - the victim (for instance of child abuse) is pressed to meet the offender, and is often pressed to say that she forgives the perpetrator.

This is naturally very hard on the victim, who might suddenly feel that _she_ is to blame for not forgiving.

If she _can_ forgive the perpetrator...well, that I _cannot_ say. I guess there are some that may, but probably that a vast majority would not (and I don't blame them).

Whether this has any effect on any 'redemption'...well, I have yet to figure out exactly what to put down into this term...

Pretty uninformatively yours,

---

KAH

Relic
User ID: 0478154 Nov 28th 11:34 AM
Haaruk, that also depends on what your definition of redemption is. In whos eyes? His own, of that of his family? In the eyes of strangers? Or in the eyes of the perosn he wronged? Shades of grey abound.

Jeff
User ID: 1578334 Nov 28th 2:15 PM
Kay-Arne, you are correct in assuming that, to me, a subjective recognition that one has made the "wrong" moral choice is irrelevant to both the functional approach and the individual "moral" approach. I also should state my belief that your "functional" approach is in itself a sufficient reason to incarcerate an individual. But I think that any system also needs to be able to assign moral guilt in most cases if it is to endure. As I pointed out before, we need to be able to make moral judgments about others and we already do so regularly in our own lives. You conceded as much earlier.

We both agree that Gregor gets punished. But moral condemnation is almost as important as legal condemnation. A scumbag like Gregor _should_ be shunned, and he should elicit feelings of disgust, not just a sterile, intellectual conclusion that he needs to be punished for functional reasons.

The point at which we differ seems to be that you require an individual to recognize that he has taken the "wrong" action before guilt is imposed. "Is it wrong to rape a four year old?" I think it is sufficient for the person simply to make the moral choice at issue. "Do I rape the four year old or not, knowing that it will cause that person pain, simply because I enjoy it?" Though your related question was a very good one, I have not chosen this moral view because I believe it "functionally" necessary to impose moral guilt. I simply believe morally that guilt is imposed for moral choices. You earn guilt for violating objective morality, not just for violating your _own_ morality.

I'm not sure if we can debate our way around this disagreement. I though of a hypothetical person who is brought up in a perverse culture that endorses the rape of young children. He thinks that it is morally "right" to do commit such rapes, yet does not because he does not wish to cause pain. So, he subjectively believes he has made the wrong moral choice. Does he earn guilt? Actually, I think this hypothetical can be torn to pieces rather easily so I don't think it helps. Any ideas?

BTW, I do think my system has the virtue of assigning blame where I think both of us instinctively believe it should belong -- Gregor, Hitler, etc.

Too long post as it is but it would not be right to ignore haaruk's contributions. Haaruk, I agree with you about the dropping of the bombs. The Nagaski thing is very interesting because the Japanese tried to surrender but the Russians sat on the message. So, we believed that another bomb was necessary even though it was not. Personally, I think our lack of awareness means that the Japanese attempt to surrender is irrelevant to the morality of the decision.

Forgiveness? I agree with Kay-Arne. The decision to forgive by the young woman is hers alone. Not my place to make the call. As far as redemption, I think her forgiveness is irrelevant. I think redemption is an objective concept, whereas forgiveness is subjective. I guess it is good that we discuss this point as it might make us understand our respective positions on ole Sandor a little better, huh?

labor
User ID: 8785553 Nov 28th 3:55 PM
Haaruk, is serving 14 years and "not being in trouble with the law" enough for redemption? I don't think that the woman should necessarily forgive the rapist for _his_ sake just yet, though it might be better if she did for her own.

IMHO, sincere repentance and sacrifice is required in any quest for redemption and you mentioned nothing concerning them in this case.What did the guy do to expiate his crime?

BTW, I think that cold-blooded murderers, child molesters and rapists shouldn't be let out of prison early. It is unfair towards their victims and risky for the other innoncents.

Jeff
User ID: 1578334 Nov 28th 4:35 PM
Repentance _and_ sacrifice. Very well said, labor.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Nov 29th 4:13 AM
Relic raised the important question. What is redemption? For me, it is a purely psychological, spiritual thing. For me, it has nothing to do with law and order.

I stayed out of this for a while, for reasons you know, so I have to answer a world of thoughts and posts. Bear with me.

Moral absolutism DOES NOT EXIST. Oh, I know there are people who believe in it. I know there are people who defend it. But it does not exist. We live in a world, a reality, where there simply IS NO moral standard. The different societies, the different laws and, yes, the different beliefs and religions all try to cope with that. By claiming moral absolutism, for example. Or by trying to find the best way in between the counterpoles. Or by just using physical force. However.

My mother always used to say: Believe what you want, as long as you believe in something. Do not be afraid of new thoughts. But there is one thing that should make you afraid, one real danger: Beware of those who tell you they know the whole truth, the whole meaning. Beware of those who tell you they have the answers to all questions. Beware of the prophets who tell you that they have understood it all".

That was very wise. Beware of the absolutists, moral or otherwise. The discussion about Sandor is the best proof of that. Though I disagree with some of you, I never said one of you was wrong. Because none, NONE of us, has the whole truth.

haaruk Nov 29th 10:31 AM
Well done Min. The infusion of the terms absolute and relative I was going to address later.

Jeff, I totally disagree that the an individual should be completely shunned by society after society has decided he has paid his legal tithe. Perhaps you have answered the question that your former teacher could not. One of the reasons for high instances of recidivism in the United States. The attitude of the self riteous of 'once scum always scum' is prejudicial, discriminatory and immoral. Or do you believe there is a genetic component involved?

Labor, your point is noticed and specific. The truth is that parole and pardon (parole in this particular case) is ingrained in the constitutional process and in most nations of the world. In the United States it is a part of initial sentencing. If it makes you more content many states have changed their statutes to preclude parole before sentence is served for such major crimes as rape and murder.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Nov 29th 10:59 AM
Jeff;

I conceded that we do make moral judgements in daily life - I did, however, not say that it was always justified to do so. In court, we make our best approximations to justice as we can muster, out from our less-than-perfect abilities to root out the truth. We examine evidence, we call in witnesses, we ask for psychologists advice to find out what goes on in the perpetrator's head, etc. etc.

It is an approximation, and I think it is - overall - a generally good one.
Our everyday judgements are much more fickle in that respect. You see someone's picture in the newspaper, don't like his face, and subconsciously convict him out of that alone, in some cases. Or you hear a few rumors, and convict him out of _that_.

In any case...you think that the ability to pin moral guilt on someone is paramount. I'm a bit curious on that, since you do not state _why_ these are important to you. What _are_ the most important reasons for that, in your opinion?

I can think of a few reasons myself. First, moral guilt allows moral condemnation of the perpetrator. This serves two purposes - first, it makes for a stigmatization of the perpetrator - it is an extra punishment, as it makes for possible social ostracism after the perpetrator is out of jail.
To this I would claim that it is better to give the perpetrator thirty years in prison, and let him actually feel that he _is_ a free man when he is done, rather than let him out after five, and live like a 'prisoner' for people's memories the rest of his life.

I acknowledge, however, that it is pretty much impossible to stop the public from stigmatizing whomever they will - thinking otherwise would be rather naive.

Second; It serves to give greater awareness among the population, seeing how a perpetrator gets morally condemned for his actions, and is not just punished for 'excesses that damages society'. I would think, however, that the same effect can largely be obtained when people see that a man is punished, even if moral guilt isn't pinned on him.

'To protect the innocent' seems like explanation enough to people for me - it basically says 'Murder is bad - innocents are hurt by it. Don't do it, or we will put your ass in jail, even if you're not subjectively aware of it's wrongness.'

Anyhoo...I'm sure you have more telling reasons than this, but I can't pinpoint them at this moment, so I'd like to hear from you on this. :o)

As for your example...well, this was very enlightening for me.
My approach would be this;

To pin moral guilt on someone, _two_ points must be fulfilled.

1. Your act must be morally reprehensible, according to the perfect moral set.

2. The inconsistency argument - you must be _aware_ of the perfect moral set (or more accurate, the respective subset of this - for instance, 'rape is wrong'), and act against what you are aware is right.

In your example, the guy in question should _not_
earn moral guilt, because rape _is_ wrong, in an absolute sense, no matter what the society endorses or not. To think otherwise would be giving in to moral relativism.

Of course, that _he_ is not guilty, unfortunately does not make the rest of the society guilty, they would fail on the awareness point. Their acts are certainly morally reprehensible, but they lack awareness of it (I assume they do, at least, considering how the example sounded). Cross reference back to my slavery example.

As for other ideas...well, nothing comes to mind right now. I'll ponder it, though...

One thing about Nagasaki - how much time went after the Hiroshima-bombing, before the second bomb was dropped? IIRC, it was a matter of days, and I'd say that was _way_ too little time. I think it went a good while before the Japanese government even knew what had happened over there.
I would think it is at least debatable whether it was wise to drop the next bomb that fast. Japan was on it's knees by then, AFAICT.

Min, about moral absolutism.

I don't know if you would call me an absolutist.
I do believe there exists (in some perfect world, no doubt :o) a set of perfect moral values. However, I question our ability to obtain that moral set. (hence the discrepancies between differing societies)
In any event, this inability should not stop us from trying to obtain the best possible approximation.

Jeff
User ID: 1578334 Nov 29th 1:28 PM
Min, there is a difference between saying that "moral absolutes exist" and "I know the _entire_ correct moral set. I would say that there is a range of "acceptable" morality, but then there are certain things that are simply wrong. No amount of moral relativism or "every one's entitled to their own opinion" can persuade me otherwise. I'll give you examples of what I mean.

1) Is premarital sex wrong? Well, I can see how you could have different moral views on this, but both views are at least somewhat reasonable. I wouldn't presume to say that there exists an "absolute" moral answer to this.

2) Raping and murdering a 2 year old solely because it gives you pleasure. Min, if you want to buy into pure moral relativism, then you are saying that this isn't "wrong", and that the morality of this act depends upon the perspective of the perpetrator. "Believe what you want, as long as you believe in something? Great. Then I believe raping and murdering two year olds and killing all non-whites is okay. And my morals are just as valid as yours.

I agree that redemption is a moral condition, not a legal one.

I do not think that every criminal should be completely shunned upon release. I do think, however, that criminals do not become guiltless and morally cleansed simply because they have served a prescribed period of time in prison. For starters, that would mean that the amount of prison time served always corresponds _exactly_ to the gravity of the offense. So our child rapist gets 6 months. Does that mean we should all welcome him with open arms when he released, as if he had never committed the act? Part of the punishment for a crime is condemnation from society.

Kay-Arne, your reasons for why moral guilt is important were good ones. I would add that it is impossible to have moral values if we do not apply those values when judging the actions of others.

You pointed out the exact hole in my example I saw when I posted it. Told you it was flawed. :-)

I think it was about 5 days between bombs. I disagree that the Japanese could not have known what happenned "over there" when the Hiroshima bomb went off. Not to be trite, but the mushroom cloud and utter devastation were hard to ignore. And we also told them that we did it and would do it again. And after 5 days, we received no response. That was because they had tried to contact us through the Russians, who intentionally failed to pass on the message so they could move into Manchuria. BTW, the fact that the Japanese sent a message through the Russians refutes any contention that they did not know what had happened.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Nov 29th 3:12 PM
Jeff;

Why is it impossible? After all, you just regard the action and it's morality for itself, and the awareness for itself. You don't give up on morality altogether.

Nagasaki;
I did not say that they did not know what happened - but five days is little anyway.
Why not two weeks, for instance?
They could hardly do any big recoveries, as messed up as they were.
The destructive power of the nuke is so big that one should use great care in it's implementation.
Is a five day pause great care?

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages