harming other people

[Yadon]

The corner stone of much of our ethics is that it's wrong, bad, incorrect, unacceptable or evil to hurt other people.

Why?

If it's a mutually agreed thing, what if you are powerful and don't fear being hurt or want to be hurt? Should the person then still have a reason beyond empathy or social contracts to not hurt other people, and why?

 

[Quintessence]

I'd think the why is obvious. Many biological organisms find physical and emotional pain unpleasant, likely because such stimuli can lead to disability that impairs its chance of survival if not outright death. Additionally, humans have social constructs that have pervasively labeled such things as "bad" or taboo to the point most are blind to its benefits or "good" aspects.

 

[Yadon]

Then another question, when is harming others acceptable?

 

[Quintessence]

Seeing as how "acceptable" is a projection of personal or social norms, whenever you or your society wants it to be?

 

[Badran]

If it's a mutually agreed thing

There's more than one scenario falling under those terms which i would have no problem with.

what if you are powerful and don't fear being hurt

The idea as i see it is to gain collective benefit. That is, it's beneficial to me and to others on many levels to avoid hurting each other, as much as we can. If i were to become powerful enough so as not to have to worry about being hurt, there's still for example:

1) My own empathy, which i neither could nor want to eliminate.

2) My loved ones, who might not necessarily be as powerful as me (thus i should still abide by this code of collective benefit and promote it, rather than go against it myself).

Now, i can of course be inconsistent. I can break it and still promote it and pretend to be embracing of it. But then i'd feel lousy about myself, and i don't want to feel that way. I also would be contributing to the failure of that code, which like i said i should care about for the sake of my loved ones for example (assuming i had no personal inclinations to abide by it).

But in truth, i do have such inclinations. As it is, i see life in a mostly negative way. Not in any objective sense, or because it should be better from my perspective. There are no grounds based upon which i could make such claim. However, it's just the way i am. My reasonably or unreasonably developed expectations are disappointed, and that's that. Abiding by the code of collective benefit helps make life better from my perspective. Even if i changed and managed to over come my general disappointment, i would still probably find the code of collective benefit to be more positive (in the sense of how it makes me feel) than the code of everyone doing what they want regardless of it's harms to others.

Basically, it's inline with my goals, my personality and my circumstances to want to abide by this code, regardless of how powerful i am or become. That said, i can't deny that it would be very tempting to break that code in such circumstances, and that of course, i have broken it before. That's mainly because we naturally have conflicting emotions, so certain ones may win out sometimes even if they are mostly outnumbered by an opposing set of emotions. Generally, if someone doesn't want to abide by this code, doesn't need it or can't help wanting to hurt others, i don't really think his/her morality or ethics are 'wrong' in general like that or in any objective sense.

Rather i just have a conflict of interest with him/her. I use words like wrong and immoral only with people who have common basis in their view of morality with me, because it's understood what's implied or meant. For instance, i wouldn't use them when conversing with a serial killer. I would convey the same ideas, just without the use of such loaded terms.

Now, i have a set of opposing emotions towards people i have a conflict of interest with. On one hand, hate, anger, etc.. and on the other understanding or empathy. Usually, when those people are very powerful, and/or when they are successful in their goals (harming others), they stimulate more of the less tolerant emotions from me (anger/nonacceptance and possibly hate), even though the others get stimulated too. They make me develop a more powerful opposition towards them. When they're weak or much less powerful, and/or are easily overcome by society, i also feel all those emotions, but more on the side of sympathizing and wishing they were different etc..

or want to be hurt?

You wanting to be hurt doesn't mean others want it too. Your acceptance of getting hurt doesn't somehow negate that others might not have it. Thus a reasonable agreement must be reached in order to resolve this possible conflict.

 

[Penumbra]

The corner stone of much of our ethics is that it's wrong, bad, incorrect, unacceptable or evil to hurt other people.

Why?

Because humans evolved as social animals, and therefore survive best (and usually only) in groups. A successful social group will not work if the members are psychopaths- empathy and understanding and sharing is in the rational self interest of the members because it strengthens the group and their place in the group.

Psychopaths generally end up dead, in prison, or in mental hospitals, because they are incapable of getting along with the rest of the group because they unfortunately don't have that natural empathy that most people possess in some quantity.

If it's a mutually agreed thing, what if you are powerful and don't fear being hurt or want to be hurt? Should the person then still have a reason beyond empathy or social contracts to not hurt other people, and why?

Power is relative. Hitler got his *** handed to him, for example. There aren't any invulnerable people, incapable of being harmed. Even if a normal person acquired complete invulnerability somehow, they still evolved within the context of being vulnerable, and still would typically have the intrinsic desire not to harm people for no good reason.

If a powerful person doesn't fear being hurt and uses that excuse to hurt people, s/he's probably going to be hurt anyway, regardless of not fearing getting hurt. If a person wants to be hurt, then you basically have a suicide bomber, they hurt others with dreams of paradise for themselves and then die for misguided selfish reasons, and it's very tragic for all involved. The best we can do is not have cultural elements that encourage any of that type of behavior.

In history, some powerful people have abused their power. In some cases, they thought they were more powerful than they really were, and they were proved wrong. Other times, they managed to make it to the end of their natural lives without being harmed, usually by having enough social support (being malevolent but not actually psychopaths) and generally in those cases societies have to spend decades rebuilding from such a wrong-headed direction. In some cases, a whole culture commits bad acts, like genocide of a whole people, and then winners get to write history. In due time they die of natural causes anyway, like everyone else, even if there was never any sort of justice between them and their victims, and then history usually eventually looks at them as dead jerks.

 

[Penumbra]

Then another question, when is harming others acceptable?

I'd be willing to harm a malevolent person if they're trying to harm benevolent people, to prevent them from doing so.

In other words, if people harm the group, the group generally finds it acceptable to harm them, in some way or another, so that the group can reduce harm to itself.

 

[Yadon]

Penumbra you think an appeal to nature is a good reason for the ethics involved in avoiding harm?

I just want to clarify to everyone that I'm not endorsing harming other people, I'm more curious beyond the typical social contract (you don't hurt me I don't hurt you one) or empathy reasons why someone might support the ethnics.

 

[Penumbra]

Penumbra you think an appeal to nature is a good reason for the ethics involved in avoiding harm?

I just want to clarify to everyone that I'm not endorsing harming other people, I'm more curious beyond the typical social contract (you don't hurt me I don't hurt you one) or empathy reasons why someone might support the ethnics.

I think ignoring nature is a mistake that is often made in philosophy. Our evolutionary history explains much of why we feel the way we do about things, like why we have empathy.

 

[Yadon]

I think ignoring nature is a mistake that is often made in philosophy. Our evolutionary history explains much of why we feel the way we do about things, like why we have empathy.

But we also have the inclination to harm people, not just help eachnother. Violence is as much a part of our nature as is our helpfulness and empathy.

 

[Penumbra]

But we also have the inclination to harm people, not just help eachnother. Violence is as much a part of our nature as is our helpfulness and empathy.

Are you sure about that?

How many people have you violently harmed in your life?

 

[Quintessence]

Are you sure about that?

I'm not speaking for Yadon, of course, but I am 100% sure about his statement. Show me a person who claims they have never once wanted to punch or slap someone in the face and I'll show you a pathological liar. Most (?) of us don't actually throw that punch because doing so is so taboo in our culture. Furthermore, physical violence is hardly the only type of harm people do to each other.

 

[Penumbra]

I'm not speaking for Yadon, of course, but I am 100% sure about his statement. Show me a person who claims they have never once wanted to punch or slap someone in the face and I'll show you a pathological liar. Most (?) of us don't actually throw that punch because doing so is so taboo in our culture. Furthermore, physical violence is hardly the only type of harm people do to each other.

Here was the line:

"Violence is as much a part of our nature as is our helpfulness and empathy."

A person wanting to at some point, punch or slap someone, and not doing it, means that violence as as much part of their nature as helpfulness and empathy, as they go through the rest of their life? I don't think so.

 

[Straw Dog]

In my case, the desire to help others is much greater, but I have fantasized about violently harming others before. I'm not proud of it, but I'm aware of the dark side. I even explored it some and have come to conclude that it's not very functional and will most certainly not lead to well-being. It's kind of scary to be aware of the potential, however.

 

[Quintessence]

Here was the line:

"Violence is as much a part of our nature as is our helpfulness and empathy."

A person wanting to at some point, punch or slap someone, and not doing it, means that violence as as much part of their nature as helpfulness and empathy, as they go through the rest of their life? I don't think so.

I'm sorry, I didn't interpret his statement as one that was making quantitative ratio claims like it seems you have. I don't think this is about person doing X more than Y. If you're doing Y at all, it's as much a part of you're nature/essence/soul/whatever as doing X. Whether or not someone has a greater inclination to Y than X is an entirely different question to me and I don't think that's what he was observing.

 

[Penumbra]

I'm sorry, I didn't interpret his statement as one that was making quantitative ratio claims like it seems you have. I don't think this is about person doing X more than Y. If you're doing Y at all, it's as much a part of you're nature/essence/soul/whatever as doing X. Whether or not someone has a greater inclination to Y than X is an entirely different question to me and I don't think that's what he was observing.

"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
-Jack Handey

Humans aren't passive. I never said they lacked violence. Only a civilization that developed in an environment without any threats whatsoever, would have absolutely no tendencies towards violence. Humans fought their way to survival in a world with a thousand ways to die.

People are willing to commit violence to secure resources, to prove themselves as viable mates, and to protect themselves and others from harm. Most people also have the ability to think forward, so they can understand that, sure, killing this person to steal their stuff will get them their stuff now, but then from then on they'd be known as that person that killed someone to steal their stuff, and they wouldn't get invited to groups anymore. It would have a long-term net negative effect on their ability to get stuff. So the more natural tendency is to be friends, to acquire friends rather than stuff, because friends can work together to get a lot of stuff.

Like, wolves in a pack can commit violence on each other for personal gain, but they don't tear the whole group apart, and don't generally kill other wolves. They have to balance their need for a higher status in the group, with the health of the group as a whole, because the group keeps the members alive.

And of course ratios matter. A person who spends her lifetime being friendly and kind to everyone who lost it once and slapped someone, has very different characteristics than someone that regularly commits aggressive or violent acts and occasionally does something not entirely selfish. We wouldn't just say, "well, kindness and violence are just both part of their essences". Sure, they both have the capability for both, but those traits are not nearly represented in the same proportions, they're not evenly stuck in there just because they have both.

The question of why it's considered wrong to hurt other people is simple from an evolutionary perspective. It's a self-selecting trait in any group animal. If an orgasm has the trait to actively hurt other members of its species for no good reason, then that species won't last long, especially if the other traits of that orgasm work best in group form. It would select itself out of existence. Humans are group animals and so we have the ethics of a group animal- the desire and ability to form bonds, form hierarchies, work together, the willingness to defend that group, and to try to achieve a good position in that group.

The vast majority of humans don't want to hurt other humans for no good reason. Something needs to provoke them, and then even when provoked, many will try to find a way to avoid violence. Aggressive tendencies generally get channeled through fantasies, sports, fiction, some non-violent or low-violence social displays (like bullying, unfortunately, which is usually minor but a times can be deadly), or socially acceptable (but not necessarily logically ethical) forms of violence like military work or police work, where they end up fighting for resources, or protecting people, depending on the nature of their specific work. They also channel it through some religions, through preaching spiritual harm to outside groups, like death or torture.

Only rarely does random violence occur, and it's usually because someone defined their group as only being their local smaller group, didn't think very long-term, and then harmed someone that they considered an outsider. The result is usually prison.

Wars occur generally for resources, and happen when the group is being defined as the nation.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

The corner stone of much of our ethics is that it's wrong, bad, incorrect, unacceptable or evil to hurt other people.

Why?

If it's a mutually agreed thing, what if you are powerful and don't fear being hurt or want to be hurt? Should the person then still have a reason beyond empathy or social contracts to not hurt other people, and why?

A few reasons - firstly, whatever you do returns threefold, so it's a karma thing.

Secondly (and my belief), people aren't worth the time/energy to hurt. They will end up hurting themselves, so why should I interfere?

I just like to sit back and grab the popcorn.

 

[Yadon]

Are you sure about that?

How many people have you violently harmed in your life?

I've killed animals before if that counts (not sadistically mind you). I've not gotten in a fight with humans since my youth though because I know it's more efficient to defuse situations and make allies instead of enemies where possible (having enemies is unavoidable sometimes). My own physical safety and the law play a part in that.

On the other hand I've caused people emotional or psychological distress in response to wrongs they have committed against me. I have harmed people within parameters but I fully admit that in a number of situations I very much enjoyed doing so even if it was perhaps not the most socially acceptable thing to do. Contrasting that I tend to be a very empathetic and caring person and I help others where and when I can.

I accept both of these as part of my nature as dictated by genetics and environment. I've changed what I can but nothing will ever change my evolutionary history. Violence is part of life, part of humanity. Unless natural selection takes out our disposition to commit violence against each other it won;t leave, ever.

 

[Quintessence]

I didn't mean to suggest that any particular individual's behavioral predispositions don't matter, Penumbra. I just meant to convey that regardless of the "ratio question," use of harm - physical or emotional - to obtain one's goals is something people do matter-of-fact and therefore, it's part of human nature/essence/soul regardless of how much that is expressed, suppressed, or encouraged by any given external situation. People who are convinced they can't possibly become the next hurtful agent towards another person are kidding themselves, be I think lying to ourselves about that is unwise. We all have the ability to inflict harm; hands that heal can also necessarily hurt; language that soothe can also necessarily sully. I do not find it wise to deny this, because it denies the responsibility that comes with the power as well as it's utility under various circumstances. If nothing else, understanding how our actions have the capacity to harm - even when not intentional - makes us more mindful and is probably required for empathy to even operate.

 

[Sunstone]

Should the person then still have a reason beyond empathy or social contracts to not hurt other people, and why?

First, a person without empathy or respect for social contracts would most likely be a psychopath like Ayn Rand. Second, even elite psychopaths get the guillotine now and then, apparently when the burdens they inflict upon others become widely perceived as excessive and unredressable through normal means. So, there's one possible reason someone person beyond empathy or social contracts should not do too much in the way of hurting others -- to save his or her head.