by Kevehs » Tue Jun 18, 2002 4:43 pm
[color=blue] Sure, but I would think that it is the honest communication of their feelings that you appreciate, not the pain. </font color=blue>
<br>
<br>[color=green] Maybe both? I have no doubt about the honest communication bit - I definitely appreciate it, but the pain bit is tricky, because I think I learn much better from painful experiences, and the more suffering an experience causes to me, the more I tend to value the experience. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>You masochist! Actually, I suppose that some of my most painful experiences have been my most educational. I wouldn't want to repeat those experiences, but that is probably why they made such an impression on me, and why I wouldn't want to erase them either. Still, I don't generally look to painful experiences with the intent of educating myself, so we might want to be even more wary of looking toward painful experiences with the intent of educating others. As we both seem to agree, pain could be a possible consequence of our interaction, but should not be the end or direct method.
<br>
<br>[color=green] Maybe. I think it may depend on what I've done. If I've done something really horrible, I might think that I "deserve" to suffer and welcome the intentional imposition of pain. Also, the outcome would probably be important to me. If I knew that the communication was made with the aim of causing pain, yet the communication has helped me a great deal in my work towards self-improvement, the value of the outcomes may overshadow the fact that the pain was caused intentionally. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Sure.
<br>
<br>[color=green] Yes. Also, some may have extremely thin skin and be terribly hurt by a trivial remark. In such cases, an attempt to communicate disapproval may do more harm than good. And, of course, often there is no way of knowing whether the expression of disapproval is necessary at all: the wrongdoer may know that what they've done is wrong (although may not show that they know it). </font color=green>
<br>
<br>That is one of the reasons the entire subject is so problematic. If we intentionally cause pain through our actions with the primary purpose of providing moral education to another, and that pain either doesn't lend to the purpose or isn't necessary because the person already knew the content of the "lesson," then it seems like we have done something wrong, perhaps very wrong.
<br>
<br>[color=green] I don't know. Some may start considering the moral side of punishment (as Christie recommends), some may not. In the later case there may be a real danger of excessive punishments. What Christie seems to be suggesting is making punishment a purely emotional matter, and I fear that too much emotions (negative emotions, anger in particular) may become destructive. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Yes.
<br>
<br>[color=green] I think we need to distinguish between the perspective of the wrongdoer and the victim. I agree that as far as the victim is concerned, often (although not always) no matter how much the wrongdoer attempts to rectify the damage, they cannot totally expunge the harm (especially emotional), and their wrongdoing will continue to create an obstacle to good relations between themselves and the victim. But as far as the wrongdoer is concerned, I think if s/he genuinely repents the wrongdoing and makes such reparation as s/he can, then the significance of the wrongdoing could be reversed, and the wrongdoing could be annulled. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Actually I had been thinking of it from the opposite perspective. I know some things I have done in the past for which I have never forgiven myself, the effects of which I still see present in certain people's lives. Many of those involved had forgiven (or forgotten) me a long time ago, but the guilt and the feeling that I have done something that cannot be rectified still remains.
<br>
<br>Anyway, I see where you are coming from, that sometimes the damage can at least repaired to the point that it is no longer a problem for anyone involved.
<br>
<br>[color=blue] Sounds very problematic. I think I would indeed disassociate without attempting to employ such coercion, unless I felt there was a high danger in such a course of action (i.e. there was a great likelihood of future negative interaction with this person as a consequence of the attempt to disassociate). </font color=blue>
<br>
<br>[color=green] Yes. This is a very important point. Disassociation may be a very dangerous game. It is difficult to predict the likelihood of future negative consequence, because you never know how the person is going to react to your disassociation, and your disassociation may produce their anger and a desire to retaliate against you. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>I agree. One thing that often bothers me on this subject is the standard belief that disassociation is an all or nothing event. Either the people involved are full members of a closely-knit community, or they are complete aliens with whom we shun all contact. It seems to me that to some point disassociation can be a positive thing, when our goals are somewhat close such that we desire a certain level of interaction, but also diverge such that we wish to retain some independence on other levels. I am reminded here of a small part a book by Iain M. Banks called "Excession," in which one part of an anarchist society diverges from another due to relatively minor ideological differences, but both remain quite friendly and supportative of their mutual goals. I think we should stress the importance of disassociation as a means of ensuring greater cooperation and cohesion amongst fairly distinct ideologies rather than purely as a kind of threat to those who "violate" our standards. Disassociation can be a very good thing sometimes, and I think we should prefer to apply it in conditions where most agree that it is desirable.
<br>
<br>[color=blue] In that case I might agree to employ coercive measures in order to have them hear us out, if I couldn't think of anything else, but I wouldn't claim that this was something we "should" have done, or something that was really justified. It seems too easy for such a situation to result in consequences I would not find acceptable for me to actually advocate such a method. </font color=blue>
<br>
<br>[color=green] Consequences such as? </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Actually, after your clarification that the methods would not be violent the consequences with which I have a problem are insignificant.
<br>
<br>[color=green] From what you've said, it appears that you are considering very carefully consequences for yourself, but do you not also have a moral obligation to consider consequences for others? </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Good point, and this reminds me of our talk about a potentially lethal cure and animal experiments. Apparently I was too narrow-minded to see the consequences for others in that situation as well.
<br>
<br>[color=green] I have no problem with your position if the only person who is affected, or who can be potentially affected, if the wrongdoer continues their wrongdoing, is you. But very often there are others who may be victimized, unless the wrongdoer is made to realise the social costs of their actions. Suppose, you know beyond all doubt that person X likes to strangle animals. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>[img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
<br>
<br>[color=green] Don't you feel you have a moral duty to confront that individual and make him listen to you? Of course, if he doesn't want to listen to you, he probably won't listen anyway, but don't you feel you should at least try to make him listen? </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Yes, I think you have a very good point, as usual. I'm not trying to say that you have implied otherwise, however, for the record I should note that I believe that those who have expressed an interest in strangling animals on this forum are joking, or at least I hope they are.
<br>
<br>[color=green] I probably need to clarify what I meant by "a degree of coercion" in my previous post. I didn't mean violent methods. I meant confronting someone and telling them what they probably don't want to hear. Or would you consider confronting someone to be a form of violence? </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Maybe if we stretch the word a bit. However, I don't deny violence itself by principle, so even if it is a form of violence it doesn't seem necessarily all that bad to me. In fact, I think that at times it could be very good for all participants.
<br>
<br>[color=green] I don't think morality will lose meaning if it didn't consist in maxims. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Given our conversation on the topic I agree with you. This is why I wanted to find out why Kant did not, and I am rather frustrated at myself for having forgotten.
[color=blue] Sure, but I would think that it is the honest communication of their feelings that you appreciate, not the pain. </font color=blue>
<br>
<br>[color=green] Maybe both? I have no doubt about the honest communication bit - I definitely appreciate it, but the pain bit is tricky, because I think I learn much better from painful experiences, and the more suffering an experience causes to me, the more I tend to value the experience. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>You masochist! Actually, I suppose that some of my most painful experiences have been my most educational. I wouldn't want to repeat those experiences, but that is probably why they made such an impression on me, and why I wouldn't want to erase them either. Still, I don't generally look to painful experiences with the intent of educating myself, so we might want to be even more wary of looking toward painful experiences with the intent of educating others. As we both seem to agree, pain could be a possible consequence of our interaction, but should not be the end or direct method.
<br>
<br>[color=green] Maybe. I think it may depend on what I've done. If I've done something really horrible, I might think that I "deserve" to suffer and welcome the intentional imposition of pain. Also, the outcome would probably be important to me. If I knew that the communication was made with the aim of causing pain, yet the communication has helped me a great deal in my work towards self-improvement, the value of the outcomes may overshadow the fact that the pain was caused intentionally. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Sure.
<br>
<br>[color=green] Yes. Also, some may have extremely thin skin and be terribly hurt by a trivial remark. In such cases, an attempt to communicate disapproval may do more harm than good. And, of course, often there is no way of knowing whether the expression of disapproval is necessary at all: the wrongdoer may know that what they've done is wrong (although may not show that they know it). </font color=green>
<br>
<br>That is one of the reasons the entire subject is so problematic. If we intentionally cause pain through our actions with the primary purpose of providing moral education to another, and that pain either doesn't lend to the purpose or isn't necessary because the person already knew the content of the "lesson," then it seems like we have done something wrong, perhaps very wrong.
<br>
<br>[color=green] I don't know. Some may start considering the moral side of punishment (as Christie recommends), some may not. In the later case there may be a real danger of excessive punishments. What Christie seems to be suggesting is making punishment a purely emotional matter, and I fear that too much emotions (negative emotions, anger in particular) may become destructive. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Yes.
<br>
<br>[color=green] I think we need to distinguish between the perspective of the wrongdoer and the victim. I agree that as far as the victim is concerned, often (although not always) no matter how much the wrongdoer attempts to rectify the damage, they cannot totally expunge the harm (especially emotional), and their wrongdoing will continue to create an obstacle to good relations between themselves and the victim. But as far as the wrongdoer is concerned, I think if s/he genuinely repents the wrongdoing and makes such reparation as s/he can, then the significance of the wrongdoing could be reversed, and the wrongdoing could be annulled. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Actually I had been thinking of it from the opposite perspective. I know some things I have done in the past for which I have never forgiven myself, the effects of which I still see present in certain people's lives. Many of those involved had forgiven (or forgotten) me a long time ago, but the guilt and the feeling that I have done something that cannot be rectified still remains.
<br>
<br>Anyway, I see where you are coming from, that sometimes the damage can at least repaired to the point that it is no longer a problem for anyone involved.
<br>
<br>[color=blue] Sounds very problematic. I think I would indeed disassociate without attempting to employ such coercion, unless I felt there was a high danger in such a course of action (i.e. there was a great likelihood of future negative interaction with this person as a consequence of the attempt to disassociate). </font color=blue>
<br>
<br>[color=green] Yes. This is a very important point. Disassociation may be a very dangerous game. It is difficult to predict the likelihood of future negative consequence, because you never know how the person is going to react to your disassociation, and your disassociation may produce their anger and a desire to retaliate against you. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>I agree. One thing that often bothers me on this subject is the standard belief that disassociation is an all or nothing event. Either the people involved are full members of a closely-knit community, or they are complete aliens with whom we shun all contact. It seems to me that to some point disassociation can be a positive thing, when our goals are somewhat close such that we desire a certain level of interaction, but also diverge such that we wish to retain some independence on other levels. I am reminded here of a small part a book by Iain M. Banks called "Excession," in which one part of an anarchist society diverges from another due to relatively minor ideological differences, but both remain quite friendly and supportative of their mutual goals. I think we should stress the importance of disassociation as a means of ensuring greater cooperation and cohesion amongst fairly distinct ideologies rather than purely as a kind of threat to those who "violate" our standards. Disassociation can be a very good thing sometimes, and I think we should prefer to apply it in conditions where most agree that it is desirable.
<br>
<br>[color=blue] In that case I might agree to employ coercive measures in order to have them hear us out, if I couldn't think of anything else, but I wouldn't claim that this was something we "should" have done, or something that was really justified. It seems too easy for such a situation to result in consequences I would not find acceptable for me to actually advocate such a method. </font color=blue>
<br>
<br>[color=green] Consequences such as? </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Actually, after your clarification that the methods would not be violent the consequences with which I have a problem are insignificant.
<br>
<br>[color=green] From what you've said, it appears that you are considering very carefully consequences for yourself, but do you not also have a moral obligation to consider consequences for others? </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Good point, and this reminds me of our talk about a potentially lethal cure and animal experiments. Apparently I was too narrow-minded to see the consequences for others in that situation as well.
<br>
<br>[color=green] I have no problem with your position if the only person who is affected, or who can be potentially affected, if the wrongdoer continues their wrongdoing, is you. But very often there are others who may be victimized, unless the wrongdoer is made to realise the social costs of their actions. Suppose, you know beyond all doubt that person X likes to strangle animals. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>[img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
<br>
<br>[color=green] Don't you feel you have a moral duty to confront that individual and make him listen to you? Of course, if he doesn't want to listen to you, he probably won't listen anyway, but don't you feel you should at least try to make him listen? </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Yes, I think you have a very good point, as usual. I'm not trying to say that you have implied otherwise, however, for the record I should note that I believe that those who have expressed an interest in strangling animals on this forum are joking, or at least I hope they are.
<br>
<br>[color=green] I probably need to clarify what I meant by "a degree of coercion" in my previous post. I didn't mean violent methods. I meant confronting someone and telling them what they probably don't want to hear. Or would you consider confronting someone to be a form of violence? </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Maybe if we stretch the word a bit. However, I don't deny violence itself by principle, so even if it is a form of violence it doesn't seem necessarily all that bad to me. In fact, I think that at times it could be very good for all participants.
<br>
<br>[color=green] I don't think morality will lose meaning if it didn't consist in maxims. </font color=green>
<br>
<br>Given our conversation on the topic I agree with you. This is why I wanted to find out why Kant did not, and I am rather frustrated at myself for having forgotten.