Nonviolence and Rationality

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

From the standpoint of simple justice, I believe that everyone has equal right to life, as do most people. On the other hand, most people say there are exceptions to this principle. For example, if a person is considered dangerous and we suspect that they may kill someone, then we say it becomes justified to kill that person in the name of defense. This is the opposite stance of saying every person has the same right to life, because it is claiming that, in certain circumstances, we should take away someone's life, after we have just stated that we have no right to do this. It is irrational for two reasons, first because we can never know for certain whether the act of violence we are trying to prevent is lesser or greater than the act of violence we are choosing to resort to. In other words we are willing to commit an act of violence now, based on preventing a supposed act of violence in the future which might not have happened at all. Secondly, it is irrational because of the equal right of every human to life, we have no right to assume that one person belongs in this world and not another. It seems clear enough now, yet this is a contradiction which I've noticed most people try to live with, or at least try not to think about.
If you wish to comment, I would appreciate any response.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,114 • Replies: 22

No top replies

Welcome to a2k Mark,

This argument depends on entirely on whether you consider the concept of "rights" to be relative or absolute. In my opinion a concept of "absolute rights" is vacuous and can only be supported by ad hoc religious absolutism. This in turn can bring in the added lunacy of "this life" versus "next life" resulting, as we know to our costs, in 9/11 scenarios.

As for "rationality" this is (a) not equivalent to "logicality" and (b) cannot simply be projected from psychological to sociological systems. Even at the psychological level the co-existence of contradictory views within the "self" is common within the flux of transactional relationships, and we might even argue that this involves the "natural" relationship between thesis and antithesis.

0 Replies

fresco, thanks for the response. You are right in that I do start off with the premise that we have no right to assume that one person belongs in this world and not another. Do you not subscribe to this belief though?

Also what about the point regarding..."we can never know for certain whether the act of violence we are trying to prevent is lesser or greater than the act of violence we are choosing to resort to."
This does not require any ad hoc absolutes.

0 Replies

This a bit chicken and egg.

My own "rationality" tells me there is only "this life". Those who subscribe to "afterlives" are "irrational" to me even though I am prepared to admit that "rationality" lies in the eye of the beholder.

Similarly in the case of the "rationality of violence" with respect to lack of knowledge of outcomes, I would argue that there is a major epistemological problem involving "knowledge" and "action". Unless we advocate naive realism it can be argued that all such "knowledge" involves "expectancy of outcomes" NOT "objective facts". Since such expectancies can be manipulated by social consensus (as for example in the Iraq War) then "rationality" is about "social reality" not "logical objectivity". This is a restatement of my point (b) above...that anthropomorhisms cannot be applied to social dynamics.

0 Replies

This a bit chicken and egg.

My own "rationality" tells me there is only "this life". Those who subscribe to "afterlives" are "irrational" to me even though I am prepared to admit that "rationality" lies in the eye of the beholder.

Similarly in the case of the "rationality of violence" with repect lack of knowledge of outcomes, I would argue that there is a major epistemological problem involving "knowledge" and "action". Unless we advocate naive realism it can be argued that all such "knowledge" involves "expectancy of outcomes" NOT "objective facts". Since such expectancies can be manipulated by social consensus (as for example in the Iraq War) then "rationality" is about "social reality" not "logical objectivity". This is a restatement of my point (b) above...that anthropomorhisms cannot be applied to social dynamics.

0 Replies

Re: Nonviolence and Rationality

Mark W wrote:

............. if a person is considered dangerous and we suspect that they may kill someone, then we say it becomes justified to kill that person in the name of defense......

Who has said this?

0 Replies

fresco, you did not reply as to whether or not you believe that "we have no right to assume that one person belongs in this world and not another".

real life, think about any pre-emptive strike in times of war, or the old "drop it, or I'll shoot" police routine. There are many instances in which people claim it is "justified" to kill when we consider someone dangerous.

0 Replies

Mark W,

I thought I did !

(a)All "rights" are relative.
(b)My "rationality" indicates there is "no other world".
(c) "He" has "a right" to rationalize "other worlds" provided it doesnt impinge on me.

In turn. you don't seem to have taken on board my point 1...."rationality" does not equate to "logicality". I refer here to anthropological studies of the rationality of different cultures (a famous example being Evans- Pritchard's study of Azande witchcraft)

0 Replies

you are misinterpreting my sentence, and I realize now that it is ambiguous, sorry.
I am not saying there is "another world", I am saying: "we have no right to assume that one person over another belongs in this world."

0 Replies

I think everything would be easier if we simply acknowledged that we are not beyond or above natural selection.

0 Replies

wouldn't the simple fact that we could acknowledge such a thing proof that we are indeed beyond and above natural selection?

That's sort of like saying, we'd be smart if we acknowledged that we are stupid. A non-sensical paradox.

0 Replies

Re: Nonviolence and Rationality

Mark W wrote:

real life wrote:
Mark W wrote:
............. if a person is considered dangerous and we suspect that they may kill someone, then we say it becomes justified to kill that person in the name of defense......

Who has said this?

real life, think about any pre-emptive strike in times of war, or the old "drop it, or I'll shoot" police routine. There are many instances in which people claim it is "justified" to kill when we consider someone dangerous.

OK. Perhaps your first statement was too vague and I didn't catch your meaning.

There is, IMO, a big difference between 'suspecting' that someone may kill another......

........and a policeman facing an imminent threat, such as an armed criminal.

0 Replies

Mark W,

Ah...I see. I would say the "right to life" is negotiated as a social transaction. The argument is clear (as Cyracuz suggests) from an evolutionary perpective in which man is an animal like any other. The "dangerous criminal" is neutralized like the "dangerous snake".
"Religion" alters this rationality and confers "rights" associated with "status".

0 Replies

yes, but we do not aspire to have the "morality" of the rest of the animal kingdom. Do you think that we should? We are gifted with the potential to reach for higher levels of justice. By higher levels I mean a justice, morality, or ethics, that would provide the greatest welfare for all, "weak" as well as "strong", old as well as young, and it would even provide the greatest welfare for misguided individuals who act violently and so would help to reform them (as we also have this potential).

0 Replies

The issue of morality is complex and has been debated on a2k on many occasions.

I have two positions on this with respect to concepts of "consciousness". On the one hand I see "morality" as a matter of social expedience perhaps supported by evolutionary factors such as "altruism genes". In that sense the "self" is a social construct and "consciousness" as an epiphenomenon of "the life process". On the other hand it may be that "consciousness" is a transcendental phenomenon in the esoteric sense of requiring no "self". In that self-less sense we are "God" from which "morality" emerges as a subcomponent. However, from this position all "things" like "separate persons" dissipate within a transcendental wholism. The evidence for the first position is empirical but for the second is largely experiential. (I say "largely" because there may be some empirical evidence fron "quantum consciousness studies" with supports non-locality of "cognitive processes")

0 Replies

Mark wrote:

wouldn't the simple fact that we could acknowledge such a thing proof that we are indeed beyond and above natural selection?

That's sort of like saying, we'd be smart if we acknowledged that we are stupid. A non-sensical paradox.

Actually, that sentence you consider nonsensical is generally thought of as being a statement of great wisdom. See Socrates. (At least, I think it was him.)

But are you beyond and above danger if you can acknowledge that you are in danger? No. And since human beings are parts of nature, since everything we think, say and do are extensions of natural force, and humans are in themselves a natural force, we are not above natural selection even though we have may have assumed a more central role in it's unfolding that any other animal.
But morality seems to make us indecisive. We are, by nature, charged with natural selection. It is part of existence that we must at times chose who lives and who dies; it is part of the responsibility we have assumed, and if we refuse to do that job it will only backfire on us.

It is already backfiring on us. Our societies are crippled by moral considerations. A person who has killed, and who will kill again if given the chance, should be removed from the equation. Not as punishment, just as a practical solution to a practical problem.

0 Replies

I agree that "we are, by nature, charged with natural selection", but we are also charged, by nature, with the ability to consciously go against this process. And this is what we call morality, we can choose to let an old person live, who may not be a contributing force to "natural selection". Why is this? What evolutionary benefit would having this freedom to "backfire" on ourselves serve?

When you say "Our societies are crippled by moral considerations."...I say our societies are crippled by immoral considerations. No war was ever started for moral considerations. It's about fear, power, money...mostly fear. Don't be fooled by those who claim that violent defense is a moral decision. It is one based on fear, it is the opposite of true morality.

0 Replies

Mark,

The flaw in your argument is your blanket term "we".

One of my earlier posts pointed out that that psychological mechanisms cannot be equated with sociological dynamics. "Morality" is not a simple property of "consciousness" (which itself is often "illogical") but a function of social zeitgeisst which seems to operate along the lines of the tribal warfare exhibited by the primates. Such inherited tendencies interfer with any "natural empathy" between diverse individuals as the "us-them" divide kicks in with its"dehumanization process" for "them".

So what is this "we" which you evoke with their "true morality" ? Do you mean a group of transcendent detached "I's" which peer dissaprovingly over the monastery wall ? This is certainly not the "we" of the "average man" and history paints a bleak picture of the influence of such "monks". We (monks) should also perhaps bear in mind the instructions of the "enlightened" sages not to "judge" but merely to "observe", for judgement is itself an act of divisiveness.

0 Replies

Yes, "we" meaning the average person. I do not believe that morality is a function of the current social zeitgiest. For example, I believe that slavery was always immoral, it just took a while for America as a society to recognize or admit this immorality. Same thing with recognizing women's right to vote, etc.

And we should not judge other people, but we should judge ideas and thoughts. You cannot say "judgement itself is an act of divisiveness", because that itself is a judgement.

0 Replies

Mark W,

Both "slavery" and "womens rights" are still "issues". They may have been locally ameliorated but such locality exemplifies zeitgeisst factors.
(If you refuse to buy cheap Chinese goods you might have a stronger case.)

You are "logically correct" in that "ordinary I" cannot "judge judgement", but the "transcedental I" does not "speak" for there are no "others" with whom to communicate !

0 Replies

Nonviolence and Rationality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know