Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GrandTheftAuto.net - Website Re-Launch

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

jheath

Murder

Recommended Posts

K^2

Now you're just making sh*t up. My neigbor is my competition? I am benefiting from his misfortune? That's ridiculous.

 

You are saying I am not hurt by a criminal stealing my neighbor's car. Well, what about the fact that now I have to worry about a risk of my own car being stollen. Every criminal out there is a risk to me. That's a good enough reason to go out there with a baseball bat and try to stop the thief. Besides that there are also in-direct damages to me in form of increase in my own insurance rates, however minimal they might be, caused by each theft.

 

And while the society is not aware of every individual's action, whenever an event occures that harms the society, the society will attempt to find the cause of it. This is the very basis of the detective work in every police department. Is it 100% effective? No, of course not. However, the society will still be able to keep crime under the controll, even if each individual cares only for own benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jheath

 

You are saying I am not hurt by a criminal stealing my neighbor's car. Well, what about the fact that now I have to worry about a risk of my own car being stollen. Every criminal out there is a risk to me. That's a good enough reason to go out there with a baseball bat and try to stop the thief.

 

I highly doubt attempting to stop the criminal yourself is at all consistent with ethical egoism. Let's assess the risks and rewards, shall we?

 

 

Action Risks Rewards
Confrontation with a bat Extreme and immediate physical danger, especially if the criminal is armed with a gun (somewhat likely), or is a member of a gang (very likely.) The likelihood that you will be targetted by other unconnected criminals will most likely remain unchanged. Intimidating reputation, and a marginal reduction (by one) of the criminal population, assuming you've killed or premanently disabled him. Your neighbor might also feel like he owes you something, but this will count for little if he is also an ethical egoist.
Ignoring the criminal Possibility that criminals will be emboldened to steal your car next, which can be reduced buying security systems or hiring guards, as ethical egoism suggests. Your neighbor might resent a little you for doing nothing. Your insurance might rise imperceptibly. Avoiding the certainty of a potentially lethal confrontation.
Joining the criminal Law enforcement and your neighbor will now be after you, unless of course you can conceal your involvement while still helping the criminal. Pact with the gang offers you an additional layer of protection, and virtually eliminates the threat of that particular gang stealing your car next. There could also be the monetary reward from your cut of the profits.
Just kick some ass, man! Easy to get your ass kicked Cool! A bat! Wait... no. *

* Last item coutesy of the Harvard Demon: How to Kick Ass

 

The advantages to intervening are dubious, while the risks involved make it clear that in this scenario we'd be better off doing nothing. Indeed the case could be made that the greatest gain could be incurred by secretly helping the criminal; provided we leave no tracks, we are doubly protected by both the gang and the police. (Helping the criminal could be something as innocent-looking as asking your neighbors out to dinner at a pre-arranged time, thereby ensuring no-one would be home at the time of the theft. This kind of collaboration is almost impossible to prove, especially if all we want from the gang is to be left alone, and forgo any monetary reward.)

 

Ethical egoism is much more likely to suggest covertly helping the criminal instead of confronting him, just as it would more likely suggest collaborating with a dictator instead of heroically opposing. After all, who cares what happens to strangers when your own personal well-being is accounted for?

 

 

the society will want to set up the government in such a way that this does not happen in the first place. Limited terms in the government, public elections, constitutional rights, etc. All of these things are there to make sure that no single individual or group ends up with more power than someone else.

...

What is the power of one individual against the power of the entire society?

 

A great deal, provided the individual were cunning enough in his use of power.

 

Say you were President, or Prime Minister as the case may be, and you wished to eliminate the constitutional limits on your behavior. Simply attempting to do so directly would likely result in a backlash, even in a collaborationist ethical egoist society. Instead, one of the tried and true methods for achieving such a goal is to act under a state of emergency. The Committee of Public Safety, the Enabling Act, and the Patriot Act are all good examples of what can be accomplished in a climate of fear. Even in a country as serene and tranquil as Canada we've had cases of inappropriate application of the War Measures Act.

 

Using a crisis is just one of the more obvious ways of undermining the legal protections against abuse of power; there are many more. My point is that, without men committed to the ideal of democracy even without direct reward for their activism, Constitutional controls are no protection against a clever and unprincipled leader. Opposing a drift to dictatorship is not a particularly low-risk business. As evidence of the high moral and mortal cost of fighting totalitarianism, I submit the millions who died in the effort to defeat Hilter, a single leader of no remarkable intellect.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

I have another option of taking the pictures with my cell phone and calling the cops. Zero risk, with a good chance of there being at least something done about the car jacking. In any case, it is not at all to my benefit to sit and do nothing. Yes, I'd be under a risk, but provided a success, it will not just take out that one criminal, but greatly discourage others. If I do go after him with a bat, one car thief in a hospital might reduce the crime in the neighborhood for years to come. And if I would be in the posession of a more serious weapon, I would use it to my advantage.

 

 

A great deal, provided the individual were cunning enough in his use of power.

 

In some extreme cases, yes, but that's more of an exception than the rule, and these things will happen regardless of the ideologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

 

I have another option of taking the pictures with my cell phone and calling the cops. Zero risk, with a good chance of there being at least something done about the car jacking. In any case, it is not at all to my benefit to sit and do nothing. Yes, I'd be under a risk, but provided a success, it will not just take out that one criminal, but greatly discourage others. If I do go after him with a bat, one car thief in a hospital might reduce the crime in the neighborhood for years to come. And if I would be in the posession of a more serious weapon, I would use it to my advantage.

Err, no. Not quite. In fact, not even close. See, for starters, what do you stand to gain from seeing a criminal caught? At best, you might, maybe, avoid a negligible increase in insurance costs. At worst, you make it harder for you to avoid the laws. Secondly, your recent proposal relies on technology, which is a VERY poor foundation for any ethical argument. Thirdly, discouraging other criminals is of no concern to you unless they will likely affect you directly. Fourthly, one criminal in hospital will have approximately zero effect on the crime rate for even a few minutes. The death penalty doesn't even discourage crime, as it can be shown quite blatantly that in england, where police don't even have guns, crime is much lower than in the USA, where not only do they have guns, but they also have the death penalty. If you think putting one criminal into hospital will have even the slightest positive effect, you are deluded. Much more likely is that you'll become the target of his gang's revenge, or if he is gangless, you can bet your ass that he'll come after you and kill you when he gets out. Fifthly, it most certainly IS to your benefit to sit and do nothing.

 

See, if one takes your egoist approach, then the optimal society will not ever be one in which the laws are extremely strict and highly efficiently enforced. Such a society may prevent you from losing by preventing the criminal behaviour of others, but it also severely prevents you from gaining, by ensuring that you also are restricted by the laws. No risk, but no benefit either. It is always to your benefit to avoid the laws, and this is always easiest when the laws are less than 100% effective. if you could in some way contribute to chaos, you would find it much easier to take advantage of the chaos, and avoid many laws. Riots are a great example of this. While the police are busy dealing with the mob, many individual oppurtunists can steal TVs and stereos and computers and whatever.

 

The best strategy in your system would be to secretly encourage highly visible crime, while commiting many more stealthy crimes on the side. Thus you stand to gain a huge amount while minimising any risks to yourself because the law enforcement is too busy. If one were attempting to always avoid the laws while attempting to have others restricted by them, one would be taking quite a risk by appealing to the police. Why? Well let's say you're a closet murderer and theif, who has thus far successfully avoided the law and gained possessions and social power (by eliminating competition) through your criminal activities, and you see a neighbour's car being broken in to. Down another street, you see a police officer. You could call the police officer over to arrest the car thief, but why would you? You might think "If this thief gets caught, then he can't steal my car, however slim the chances of that happening might be". But then you'd remember that you are a murderer and a thief yourself, and this police officer may want to get an official statement from you, and in doing so, they may just happen across some similarity between you and the evidence they have from the crimes you have commited. Maybe the boots you are wearing leave the same footprint. Or worse, maybe unbeknownst to you, a witness has given the police a description of you (maybe there was a monetary reward for information leading to your arrest?). Would the risk of immediate arrest be small enough to take, for the miniscule benefit you may get by slightly decreasing your chance to have your car stolen by that particular theif? I think not. This is the very reason that criminals rarely ever appeal to the police for help. After all, they have no respect for the law, so they might as well just take matters into their own hands.

 

Thus, as jheath and I have pointed out numerous times in numerous ways (even resorting to a table to lay it out in the most obvious way), your system -which promotes only caring about oneself, and avoiding laws whilst invoking them on others- can only support a criminal society, where every individual is attempting to be a criminal. They may be also trying to prevent themselves from being the target of crime, but in nearly all cases, this is more easily done (and far more safely) by simply being a bigger criminal, than it is by appealing to the law. And let's not forget, that in your system, even the judges and police officers are ethical egoists, so it's not like law enforcement would ever be efficient anyway. Corruption would be the norm, because a police officer or judge (or any member of the jury) will always think that taking a few thousand dollars is much more to his own benefit than arresting a criminal that no-one else knows about. Unless you implement a bounty system, where dobbing someone in for such corruption will garner a reward. But then, of course, you'd have everyone making false accusations against everyone else for the easy money reward. And bribery is ever so hard to prove when it's one person's word against another's.

 

Anyway, I'm done with this debate with you. jheath and I have destroyed your arguments dozens of times over, but you just keep re-stating them and never counter-arguing (except with extremely lame sh*t like "what if I take a picture with my cell phone??" or "all of society will mobilise against criminals in my world" or "everyone will risk their lives to overthrow a dictator....[despite the fact that this is completely contrary to my whole system]"). You have pretty much zero understanding of human psychology (which is totally unexpected given your expertise.... sarcasm.gif ), and have a profound lack of ability to see the bigger picture and all the layers that make it up. Your whole world is entirely one-dimensional... a bad photocopy of reality. Your idealizations of humanity are disturbingly distant from how people really are, or how they hope to be, and show a complete lack of understanding about why they are the way they are, and why they hope to be the way they wish they were. For someone who apparantly studied artificial intelligence, you have an incredibly poor grasp of how aggregate individual motivations and external limitations will manifest in the behaviour of a system. When shown logically and by example how things are, and where you are wrong, and why, you simply revert to repeating yourself, as if you believe you are absolutely right and cannot possibly be wrong, and therefore if you keep repeating yourself maybe everyone else will start to realise that you are right. But they will never do so, because the conclusions from your arguments are completely unacceptable to any human with a semblance of humanity.

 

And finally, what is it, exactly, that you are trying to prove? What is your goal? That your hypothetical system will result in a society that is pleasant and beneficial for all involved? That your system could create a society similar to the one we live in today? That your system would create a society that is abhorent and reprehensible on all accounts? That your system is superior to other ethical systems on some arbitrary and un-named measure? I think, from what I can infer about your motivations from your posts, that your goal is to prove that your system is superior to other ethical systems because it is more logical than others and yet can produce a similar society to the one we currently live in. If so, then you are completely missing the whole point. See, the purpose of ethics is not to achieve with perfect logical consistency a model that duplicates how things are... yet via a different means. It's not even about constructing a perfectly logical system. The purpose of ethics is to achieve a coherent foundation of moral rules which guide human behaviour in a way which is consistent with their instincts, emotions, and logic, and enhances the benefits to oneself and others while minimising harm to oneself and others. As ethical reasoning becomes more advanced, it comes closer to achieving that purpose. Higher ethical reasoning always moves towards what people feel is "good", and away from what people feel is "bad". You might think these concepts are illogical, but like I've said from the start, logic is not what this is all about. To focus solely on the logic is to ignore a huge and massively important part of what it means to be human, which is especially erroneous in the context of ethics.

 

So you have no real goal here, and if you do, you're aiming for the entirely wrong target, and when everyone keeps telling you that you've missed the mark, and by how much, you keep trying to tell them that you haven't, by explaining the precise trajectory of your arrow. Yet you didn't just fall short, you were aiming the wrong way. But even without a target, you still fell short.

 

But I've had my fun with you. Good luck patching the holes jheath will no doubt continue tearing in your arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tenacious G

I can only talk for myself, but in my understanding it´s wrong to murder any living creature (or plant)

 

I agree with you that killing harmless creatures is wrong if you're doin it fun/sport etc, but killing them in the name of self-defence or for food can be both classed in my view as the right thing to do, as it results in tryin to survive.

 

and by the way, how could you say that killing a plant is "murder". confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jheath
and by the way, how could you say that killing a plant is "murder". confused.gif

Didn't you know that all living things have an unassailable right to life, regardless of whether they have the ability to think or feel? If you only knew how many living things you killed in the course of your morning routine, you'd never brush your teeth or take a shower ever again, you elitist bactericidal jerk. colgate.gif

 

BTW, Happy New Year everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Secondly, your recent proposal relies on technology, which is a VERY poor foundation for any ethical argument.

When I started arguing my point in "do we need religion" thread, part of my thesis was that we do no longer need morals due to advances of our civilization, that includes technology. Part of the reason why there is no need for a social rule against killing someone is because there is the law which is policed successfully enough to keep the rate of murders low enough, and this is, in part, due to technology. So you can't throw it out of the argument. If we start talking about a bunch of cavement in a small tribe, yes, murder should be taught to be immoral to everyone, or better yet that it will anger the gods, because it would be quite complicated to make sure nobody commits it otherwise.

 

See, if one takes your egoist approach, then the optimal society will not ever be one in which the laws are extremely strict and highly efficiently enforced. Such a society may prevent you from losing by preventing the criminal behaviour of others, but it also severely prevents you from gaining, by ensuring that you also are restricted by the laws. No risk, but no benefit either. It is always to your benefit to avoid the laws, and this is always easiest when the laws are less than 100% effective. if you could in some way contribute to chaos, you would find it much easier to take advantage of the chaos, and avoid many laws. Riots are a great example of this. While the police are busy dealing with the mob, many individual oppurtunists can steal TVs and stereos and computers and whatever.

Riots are good for people who have nothing to loose. I happen to have quite a few posessions that I cannot watch over 24/7. I have gained these in a perfectly legal fasion, and I intend on continuing to do this. Due to my intelect, I can gain a lot more in a highly structured society where nobody can break the law. Yes, I would prefer to be the only one with an exception, but that isn't going to happen, and between chaos and strict enforcement of the laws, I choose the later. That is a better world for me and anyone with a brain.

 

The best strategy in your system would be to secretly encourage highly visible crime, while commiting many more stealthy crimes on the side. Thus you stand to gain a huge amount while minimising any risks to yourself because the law enforcement is too busy.

It might seem so, at a glance, but someone is bound to try to steal from me in such scenario. I really would not like that to happen. You might say, "whatever, you steal back whatever is stolen from you," and maybe you'd like to live like that, but I like some stability in my life.

 

And finally, what is it, exactly, that you are trying to prove? What is your goal? That your hypothetical system will result in a society that is pleasant and beneficial for all involved? That your system could create a society similar to the one we live in today? That your system would create a society that is abhorent and reprehensible on all accounts? That your system is superior to other ethical systems on some arbitrary and un-named measure? I think, from what I can infer about your motivations from your posts, that your goal is to prove that your system is superior to other ethical systems because it is more logical than others and yet can produce a similar society to the one we currently live in. If so, then you are completely missing the whole point. See, the purpose of ethics is not to achieve with perfect logical consistency a model that duplicates how things are... yet via a different means. It's not even about constructing a perfectly logical system. The purpose of ethics is to achieve a coherent foundation of moral rules which guide human behaviour in a way which is consistent with their instincts, emotions, and logic, and enhances the benefits to oneself and others while minimising harm to oneself and others.

I want to prove that a society of people who do not feel bad about killing each other can function as well as the current society, as long as a well structured system of laws and law enforcement is allready in place. As I said, initially it was part of the argument against the need of the religion in today's society. We do not need a religion or something else to teach us that murder is wrong. We only need it to be illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demarest
Society has many rules (moral and otherwise) which condemn murder, but what is at the heart of these rules?

Always ask why.

 

Society has regressed into a dictatorship whether people like it or not. Whereas once rules were to provide something victims could default to to be vindicated, they've instead been mutilated over the years to become ways that those in charge can ensnare greater numbers. I digress. It boils down to control. Strip the general public of power on any level and you increase your own power assuming you're one of those in charge. We make sure that this is taught early so that by time a human is of the age of rational thought, to have their own freedoms regulated doesn't strike them as out of place.

 

Murder obviously represents one end of the spectrum of vengeance. Vengeance in and of itself is not wrong. In school, if the kid next to you took your paste cup, you socked him one and took it back. As it should be. But no, we must prepare you for your life of having every decision made for you. So the teacher steps in and tells you that that's wrong. That you're to report to her so that she may dispense the proper punishment. This has its upsides. For one, the unbiased, central power can determine the punishment to fit the crime. In other words, we lose the ability to overpunish. The other upside being an ironic one. Go to the teacher with too meager a trespass and you're faced with the concept of too meager a claim. You may hear the word "tattle-tale" as a deterent. It gets you used to accepting certain amounts of injustice in the world. The irony being that you're essentially being told to deal with it by the very entity that would scold you for dealing with it instead of bringing it to them. This contradiction is meant to leave the victim in self-doubt, thereby disabling him.

 

Since we may not strike our assailant in response to his wronging us, obviously we would not be entitled to murder him even if he had committed a trespass that would leave a jury sentencing him to just that. I would like to think society is finally beginning to wake up from this lullaby it once subscribed to. My basis is the increasing pervasiveness of CCW-awareness and the legislature thereof in the US. That is to say that the biggest dictatorship of all is actually allowing its citizens to once again be armed as promised. As if we're actually trustworthy to make some of our decisions for ourselves. It's one of many small cursors, but a significant one just the same. It ties into the topic too as under some circumstances, murder is sanctioned by the controlling body so long as the murder was in place of the murder and/or sever bodily injury of yourself. Of course, this varies with locality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moogle7

Because no man has the right to take another man's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

You are still not saying why. You just have "moral" rules that you follow. Yes, their existence makes sense, but you need to understand why. I believe that ideally law is superior to morals. I hope that one day law will completely displace any form of morality. Formal rules are better than informal social pressures in a large society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Morals act as defense, whether on a personal level, or on the level of an entire civilisation. To do away with them would be to let down your defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archaon, Lord of End Times

I'm not for going out and killing people for no reason. But one of my strongest beleives is revenge. If you kill one of mine, consider yourself dead. I know revenge is nothing but a vicious cycle but what other choice is there? Prison time? Not nearly good enough, in my opinion. Death sentence? Too quick and painless. Forgive and forget? Bullsh*t, I never did beleive in that. I could not honestly live with myself if I forgave and forgot the killer of a family member or close friend. It would chew on my mind till my death. If I get killed, I sure as hell want someone to avenge me.

Edited by Archaon, Lord of End Times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Morals act as defense, whether on a personal level, or on the level of an entire civilisation. To do away with them would be to let down your defense.

Tell me this, when you go to school or work, do you wear a medieval armor? I can bet you don't. It would protect you, but only so much, and it's extremely constricting and heavy. You would much rather count on being defended by the law. Same thing with morals. They only provide so much protection, because somebody else might not share your moral views. Law protects you much better. And your morals constrict your actions. You can't claim that all your morals are reasonable at all times. They restrict the actions you can take, and that will allow others, these who aren't restricted by morals, to take advantage of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Ah, but my morals allow me to dispatch the immoral. wink.gif

 

I see what you mean, but on the whole, morals - while somewhat illogical - provide us, as a whole, with a template for better living.

 

And what are laws, but enforced morals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Morals evolve over time. When the conditions change, morals need time to adapt. Laws can be changed much faster. There is a problem with many laws being based on morals and therefore not being quite up to date, but laws still tend to be more flexible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.