LifeIsBrief

I think we're just going to disagree on this. Creating life isn't the initiation of the harm. Harm will inevitably be initiated on any human being, at some point in their life, but the creation of that life is not inherently one of those harms. Most parents will initiate harm, but that's when they do something immoral. Whether or not this is a pure truism, with 0 possibility of contradictions, depends in some ways, on whether or not sadness/depression is purely genetic. I don't think it is. "Better" may be a poor choice of words, but it does matter. If it is good to be alive, creating life, does not initiate harm, and in general, I'm a big fan of life. There's a bit too much of it right now, and humanity should probably chill on the population... but creating life can only be seen as harmful, if being alive is inherently harmful, and I don't think it is.

Good question... That's one I haven't quite answered for myself yet. Is life better than the alternative? I think so, but until I'm absolutely sure, I would suggest it would be immoral for me to bring a child into the world. I think two parents who live noble lives, free of vice, happily engaged with a community in which they are productive, and respected individuals do a wonderful service to themselves, the child, and the community by giving birth. I wouldn't suggest it's the birth that causes harm, but the cruel people who surround it. I don't know if you could make the argument it's not the initiation of force though, and I would argue that most parents currently cause a child harm by bringing them into the world, due to the fact they are unprepared to raise it in a peaceful manner that will bring the child joy.

I agree with cab, that under our current system, sharing intellectual property is immoral. I've encountered several people my age, with perfectly adequate incomes who suggest "I don't buy music any more", as if that was a perfectly acceptable moral choice. I almost always respond, "Well then, you don't support the creation of artwork, and you're a bit of a petty thief, aren't you?". It tends to get an interesting conversation started. That said... I would also argue, that if you are not freely sharing and giving away your intellectual property, you're making a huge mistake. If people enjoy your work, they will eventually pay you for it. Sharing, is the new advertising.

Recently, while goofing off on another forum, I tried to see if anyone could come up with an exception to the rule "It is immoral to initiate force". Immediately people not just moved, but deleted the goal post suggesting I was a pacifist hippie, who wouldn't use force to prevent a rape or murder. Apparently, people don't understand the word initiate... and I blame the school system. Eventually, however, someone gave an interesting answer. It was a bit ridiculous, but there was an element of linguistic truth to the claim. The example involved witnessing a sick child, who was not being literally abused, but whose parents were refusing to take them to a doctor even after being offered a ride, or assistance. The only reason I could see for this, would be religious in nature, and thus you could easily argue, that the child was being forced by its parents to believe a religion they couldn't possibly understand... but, there was another possibility, crippling ignorance. Someone who simply can't tell the difference between a cold, and something much more severe, which requires medical attention. In that situation, I had to admit, that it might be moral for a school, or friend, to take the kid to the doctor, without permission of the parent or child. Technically, it would be a moral initiation of force. Stefan mentioned one recently as well, pushing a blind man out of the way of a speeding car, or trying to catch someone before they committed suicide. In all of these cases however, I feel "It is immoral to initiate a cause of harm", would still work. It's not the force that is immoral, but causing harm. Even the darker example of the person committed to suicide would still hold up under this scrutiny. If the person was in crippling agony, with a terminal disease, and you grabbed them, with no hope of changing their mind, you may have caused a bit of harm, and thus, you may owe that person an apology. If, however, their girlfriend left them, or they were on a drug, or drunk, and not thinking clearly, using force to remove them from the cliff, and talking them down would not cause harm, and thus you made a moral choice. Can anyone think of an exception to this rule? It is immoral to initiate a cause of harm. Is this a slightly more comprehensive statement? Edit: This should have been in the Philosophy section. Sorry about that. Just to be clear, taxes, and states, always cause harm.

Just for fun... "It's okay, I know that the idea of doing a spiritual ritual can sound crazy, medieval, bizarre... etc. especially when you never tried it or experienced its outcome. If you want to see empirical evidence, why not try it? Experiment and see the results" Literally a billion people are trying to put this philosophy into practice... Why isn't it working? That's as empirical as it gets. If great knowledge and wisdom can be gained from these endeavors, why aren't Muslims the billion most productive, inventive, educated, and influential people on the planet, especially if you picked the right creator? From the perspective of an atheist, and Buddhish person such as myself, the answer is clear. The root of suffering is ignorance, and confusion. So, the methods being employed by this particular group of people, are incorrect and do not lead to happy and productive lives. This is also why, in my humble opinion, atheists have a particular distaste for this faith. It makes incredible claims, and they are proven, not to functionally work in this reality. How does a believer reconcile this problem? I don't have a particular distaste for Islam, I don't even see a problem with deism, because I try not to waste time arguing for or against claims that are impossible to prove. Buddhism doesn't work out incredibly well either, Tibet is constantly in a struggle to survive, which is part of the reason I say Buddhish. I find all dogma to be distasteful, still... it blows my mind, that this particular faith continues to recruit, and grow in number, when every state linking this philosophy to their nation, is constantly falling into self destruction, even faster than all the other horrible and self destructive states in the world.

Every person is different... 10-15 filtered cigarettes a day, is a relatively small habit, compared to some... but, I would suggest that they've gotten better, if it's been awhile since you tried them. Variable voltage, and high nicotine content juices really give you that harsh awesome throat hit, if it's what you're looking for. It's always amazing to hear different peoples experience though, because a couple of my friends had the same experience as I did, instantly quitting. One felt exactly the same way you do. People are a strange, and complex variable. Still, if the person you buy it for, has the same experience I did, I can't imagine them not thinking it was the best gift they ever received. Worst case scenario, it's an awkward, lame, hookah substitute, but I can't imagine them not appreciating the effort.

I quit smoking 3-6 months ago (I can't even remember, that's how good these things are), when I got a starter kit from mtbakervapor.com This is not the cheapest place to buy an e-cig, it just happens to be an American company, not owned by a tobacco conglomerate, that makes absolutely delicious nicotine juice. I'm sure there is a Canadian equivalent, for Canadians who care about buying localish, I just wanted to mention them, because they have an insane selection of really unusual, and insanely tasty juices, that are the reason I quit smoking. Days after having a new E-cig, I never thought about a cigarette again, and now I'm slowly going from high nicotine content to 0. I smoked half a pack a day, for years. Eventually I may quit entirely, but I might keep vaping occasionally just for the taste, or to stop useless snacking. Already, I go hours, without even thinking about my addiction, and that never happened when I was still smoking traditional tobacco products. If you love someone who smokes cigarettes, even though they may be a bit off put by you intervening with their habit, I truly believe this is the most wonderful Christmas gift you could possibly give them. A starter kit at this website (which is a bit expensive), and 5 juices (which are not), will run you about 70 bucks, and last them for months. I truly believe that if health insurance covered these devices, those companies, and the taxpayer, would save literally billions of dollars. In America, it's illegal to advertise these as a smoking cessation tool, because the research is still out on their harm... but they are one, the best one. If you want to spend 70 dollars (or 40-50 at a cheaper site, again, this isn't an advertisement), on a person you love, who smokes cigarettes this Christmas (I know we're mostly atheists, but it's a capitalist holiday, lol)... This is the coolest gift you could possibly give them. You may actually save their life.

Ahh, yes, forgiveness is a response to virtue... Should have been self explanatory... Too early in the morning for me...

That's very interesting. I never swallowed the theory whole, and never really "engaged with the community"... thus sparing me the problem of hypocrisy, which seems inherent in almost all human endeavors. I would say... The people you have the option of forgiving, have control over whether or not you forgive them, if that makes any sense. When someone truly regrets their actions, and desperately wants to reconcile, for no self interested benefit, but peace of mind... It becomes very hard not to give them the opportunity. Your forgiveness becomes their carrot, and their actions become yours. I think this is something I have personally experienced however, and thus it might in objective reality, be incredibly rare.

"The Buddhists say life is suffering. That's the first fundamental Buddhist dictum, and I suppose, a modern person would tend to think of that as a very pessimistic claim, but I found when I've shared that information with my students, once they understand what it means... It's actually a relief, because people run around madly, suffering away, and all of them inside their little shell think... Well, there must be something wrong with me, because here I am suffering, and you know, I mean... That isn't how things are supposed to be. Well then, you might say, who says that's not the way life's supposed to be? The Buddhists say life is suffering, so what that means is... If you're not suffering, that's a good thing, that's lucky, that's fortunate, that's not the way of the world, that may be something to be grateful for, ecstatic about even" This is the fundamental truth that allows me to think that Stefan is one of the greatest philosophers of our time, but still consider myself Buddhish, despite his utter distaste for Buddhism. I'm only 5 minutes in, but that was so well put, I can't help but be enthralled. If you are remotely interested in the more rational aspects of Buddhism, there is a really great, incredibly short book written by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, called "The Dalai Lama's Book of Awakening", which in my early 20's, and honestly, to this day, I find to be an absolutely magnificent treatise on morality. It gets a bit hippy dippy, and he has difficulty translating some concepts to English, but it is entirely worth the 2-3 hour read. FYI, the current Dalai Lama, actually believes it might be immoral to select the next Dalai Lama using the same archaic methods used to select him, and it's one of very few religions that require no belief in god.

Okay, just in case you're arguing in good faith... Here are the first two articles I could find on sadists and psychopaths. http://m.livescience.com/38421-psychopaths-feel-empathy-when-they-try.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/224177758 Of course, at no time did I argue that everyone has significant amounts of empathy. I even suggested that you could drop it to .01% of their conscious mind being left intact, with the capacity for feelings universal to all human beings who have ever written literature, philosophy, religious texts, economic models, psychology books etc. You don't seem to listen to anyone but yourself however. If you think sadists lack empathy, you're completely mistaken based on all psychological research. They actually have to empathize with their victim in order to derive pleasure, and every brain scan shows this. Psychopaths on the other hand experience a dramatically lower capacity for empathy, still it is not non existent, and that is all I have ever argued. There is a conscious human being in there, no matter how repressed. You completely misunderstand my point about the "spare the rod, spoil the child" quote, and it seems intentional. My point, is that if hitting their children with a rod, felt good... they wouldn't need a threat/justification/excuse at the end of the saying. If when a parent hit their child with a rod, it felt good, or even tolerable, the statement would simply be "Hit your kid with a rod". The fact that there is an "or else" at the end of the statement proves that the person saying it needs an extra justification. This is axiomatically true. You wouldn't need an "or else the child will spoil", if you weren't instantly filled with sadness when you hit your children. They're not liars, they are making excuses for something they know feels wrong. If the speaker, wasn't inherently averse to striking children, they would need no further explanation. They aren't liars, they're cruel people looking for an excuse to justify behavior that naturally makes them feel bad. There is a mess load of research on psychopaths and sadists, and absolutely none of it suggests, that there is no conscious human being there, or that they have 0 empathy. Things exist on a spectrum. So long as their empathy isn't reduced to 0, they are, in part, personally responsible for their actions and choices, and this is an important part of understanding abusers.

STer you seem really hung up on "absolutely, everyone knows that hitting children is wrong", and "everyone has 10% control"... The point of the everyone has 10% control comment, is that everyone has some degree of control... Sure, cut it down .01 if it makes you feel better... Arguing that people have no control, is by definition pure determinism for "some people". You can't say some people have absolutely no self control, and you're not arguing for pure determinism, those two statements directly contradict one another. How does everyone know hitting children is wrong? It's called empathy, and sympathy, things written about in every psychological text on the planet. Also, the foundation of all great literature, philosophy, and world religions. Where is your empirical evidence that disproves all of human history? It would have to be quite a lot... I repeat my last argument, even the phrase you use to describe people who "don't understand", "spare the rod spoil the child" is actually empirical proof that the person saying it, knows that hitting children is wrong. They use that saying to justify their action. If they weren't using that statement as a justification the saying would be "beat up your kids cus' it's fun".

I actually agree with that Kevin. Every time you hit another human being you immediately feel "Ooh... I wouldn't like it if someone did that to me". I just think society, brain damage, suffering, and ignorance of a better way, can make people suppress their natural emotions. The saying "spare the rod, spoil the child", is classic "ends justify the means" nonsense. In and of itself that is proof that they feel the need to justify something, they already inherently are born knowing is wrong. Thus, no matter how damaged a persons brain is, I won't let them ignore responsibility. I simply think that if you can make people deal with these issues consciously, they are capable of change and growth, which may one day lead to redemption, peace, self knowledge, loving kindness, nirvana, whatever you want to call it. Sympathy for the horrible nonsense they were taught by society, brain damage they experienced, and pain they went through as a child, might be the bridge to forgiveness, which can help incentivize that growth. Still, that is entirely up to the people they have harmed, and again, I would have no insight into where anyone else's lines might be drawn.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, never goes unpunished, does it STer? I say "We agree that there is a spectrum (because you used that word before), but I would suggest that everyone has at least 10% control". This is not controversial stuff. I'm saying that people have conscious minds and they make decisions. You say you're not arguing pure determinism, but you turn my 10% conscious behavior, into "You write as if all abusers believe deep down that their abuse is wrong". I never said anything like that, and this makes it very clear that you are arguing pure determinism for "some people". I said that the combination of suffering and ignorance are the root of abuse. You also go on to complain about how people on this forum are constantly competing in a game to hate abuse the most... but you only do that for the purpose of setting up a new game, the who cares about children the most game, which you claim to obviously win, because you won't sink to our level, and discuss the responsibility of abusers. This is childish nonsense, and it makes discussing things with you incredibly frustrating.

I understand your argument. I disagree. The main point of contention, is that I would say absolutely, that 0 people, are completely unconscious what they're doing. Full repression is impossible, for everyone. We agree there is a spectrum, but I would suggest that everyone has at least 10% control (the vague number I picked for no real reason). Everyone can get better. Everyone could choose to be a Buddhist monk and then gain control of more and more of their unconscious mind, until it is nearly total. The reason I suggested that you are arguing for pure determinism, with your last post, is statements like "You must adapt your views on things like morality to the facts". Maybe I misinterpreted you, but Sam Harris recently wrote a book in which he believes he has proven that there is no free will. I haven't read it yet, but I have seen numerous hour plus debates in which he defends it, and I see no real facts or evidence supporting his claim. State science, for the most part, is siding with him in this debate, and I find that to be a terrifying assault on both reason and morality. It is entirely possible that this is an emotional problem, related to me personally, and my understanding of what he is saying... that's why I don't want to get into it. I no longer trust our institutions to determine what facts are, because, I find them incompetent. It's a long story, a boring one, and it won't come to anything in forum posts.

I'm not going to get into this with you... because first you say you're not arguing pure determinism, then at the end, you say the that science and the facts are going to prove pure determinism soon, no matter what my ethics suggest. There is an old Buddhist saying "The greater the gap between stimulus and response, the more enlightened the individual". I'm probably the only person on here who will argue pure free will, and that Sam Harris is a blithering idiot... but I don't have time for that, it would take a book. I believe you can consciously control almost every decision you make, but it's a skill you need to work on, and most people are too lazy. The evidence for this is sparse, but I would point to monks who can control their body temperature, heart rate, brain scan results etc. I don't think anything is ever successfully repressed. It rises to the surface, and your conscious mind will eventually have to deal with it. I can agree that the argument over responsibility is much less important than protecting children, but you could spend weeks trying to convince me I don't make most of my choices consciously, and you'll never get me to move an inch, because I have overwhelming evidence in my personal experience to suggest otherwise. Finally, I can't imagine something that would make the government happier than proving that people do not have free will. This is just a rabbit hole I could spend an eternity writing about, and it's not worth it.

Kevin, I did not forget that you said you had sympathy for miserable people (by suggesting you were not a psychopath, which makes it clear you understand what I meant by that). However, when you equate sympathy, with excusing, or lacking responsibility, I feel it contradicts that statement, and creates cognitive dissonance in my brain. That said, STer's response, clarifies why you would equate those two things. I hate determinist nonsense. STer, this isn't a misunderstanding... I understand why you would want to avoid the determinist debate, and focus on the child. That's a good thing. Still, we're posting on a philosophy forum. I might give you 90% unconscious, but I have to categorically disagree with you, that there's even a .00001% chance, that it's all unconscious, and the parent has no control. I don't understand how morality can exist at all, in a determinist worldview. There's a reason that subject went off limits... We'll argue for days, and no I will never agree with you, because from my perspective that argument makes 0.00000% sense.

I edited your name before you finished the response, still, sorry about that, really careless. I guess I would just disagree that anyone is using unconsciousness as an excuse. I would also disagree that an appeal to sympathy, is a justification or excuse. I'm not appealing to sympathy... Sympathy is natural, any time you see a person suffer. This is not just a fundament to all religions, and consciousness, it's also fundamental to capitalism if you consider Adam Smiths "Theory of Moral Sentiments" as a supplement to "The Wealth of Nations". I don't think anyone should have to appeal to sympathy, it just exists, as I understand it. Do you not feel sorry for miserable people? Do you not have sympathy for them? I can't even imagine that. Do some people think the behavior, is normal, excusable, and acceptable? Yes. As you suggest, that runs rampant. I just don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that it should, that's why I find the response strange. I think I understand better now. I just don't understand how anyone could not have sympathy for any one who is suffering, no matter how horrible their actions. Maybe that's a personal thing, that I've projected as universal. Just as I say this, STer goes on to suggest that responsibility is unimportant, and parents might not exhibit it. You lost me on that one STer. I would suggest they have to be both responsible, and worthy of sympathy. I'm a free will guy.

I'm just curious Kevin, who is this a response to? Who is normalizing and excusing? The last response I gave was "Every parent who abused a child committed a horrible act, but can people do something horrible, and still eventually through incredible, almost heroic effort redeem themselves?" I only mention this, because everything I've written talks about how immoral, and inexcusable this behavior is... but, if a person can never be redeemed, isn't therapy pointless? It almost seems like you're saying that every person can be redeemed through self work and therapy, except parents who have slapped their children. I also said that some parents deserve jail, some supervised visits, and some forgiveness... Are you basically suggesting every parent who ever slapped their child deserves jail or eternal shunning? I'm not saying this to be dismissive, I just really don't understand, and I want to. I don't think anyone said this was normal or acceptable behavior, except Louis CK, with his "It's not immoral, it's just wrong, it doesn't work"... but even that, isn't that related to the point of your signature? reason=virtue=happiness... I disagree with Louis on this issue, as I mentioned in my response to Myst, but I disagree because wrong=vice=misery. Wrong and immoral are the same thing in my mind, so there's nothing worth normalizing about this behavior, it's categorically cruel, immoral, and inexcusable.

Beautifully put together responses STer. I couldn't have put it better myself... obviously, because I tried. It makes me feel awful for calling you a troll in that one thread where you and I went at it. I apologize for that, for what it's worth. My response to LanceD's are they "responsible adults behaving badly, or helpless victims" is... Yes, what can we do about it, to help the children? The focus has to be on the child, but there are so many examples of people learning and growing after they become responsible adults, that I just don't think it's a good idea to immediately write off every human being who has ever spanked their children. There is spectrum, or gray area, in play here. Some, like LanceD, and my mother (imho), can progress, realize the error of their ways, and become truly loving and compassionate individuals committed to improving the life of their child... Others, need to be kept away from children at all cost. Still, you can feel sorry for anyone who's miserable, in my weird buddhish mind. Some parents deserve jail, some supervised visits, and some forgiveness. Every parent who abuses their child, committed a horrible act, but people can do something horrible, and still eventually through incredible, almost heroic effort redeem themselves. Deciding who's who, is an incredibly individual, and community oriented task. It's also one I wouldn't claim to have any special insight to.

Again, I really feel like I don't speak English. I always have difficulty interacting with people, so I'm not surprised it extends to this forum... but how you read what I say, and find it disturbing, is beyond me. My mother raised me to 8, 22 years ago, so she obviously had way less information than you did, and no internet. You say everyone should learn to raise a child before they have one, but you didn't, you took on the "traditional role of an authoritarian father" despite all the extra information available to you, but find my forgiveness of my mother disturbing? She stopped around 12, and through self examination, realized she was wrong, and started trying to make it up to me, before the internet was popular. I say, it's not okay, for you to have ever embarked on the path of authoritarianism, it's immoral, and there is no excuse. The same is true for her, and you suggest that I'm saying that if she had "stayed on that path" it would be okay. That's not what I said at all. You both have guilty consciences because what you did was immoral. The sentence "my initial ideas on parenting were hardly my fault", is directly contradictory, to your opening statement. People should be shown forgiveness when "the person shows honest guilt and attempts to reconcile, because they didn't know any better"... That's been the whole point of what I have written, but I would go farther and suggest, that everyone in the last 50 years has known better, so it takes a special effort, over decades, to overcome those mistakes. Is the problem that some of you think I'm already a parent who hits his child? As I said, I have issues with alcohol, and will never consider having a child until I am completely sober, happy, productively employed, in love with a wife, and have my temper under control enough to raise them peacefully... "anything less is inexcusable".

I'll try, I just worry that my poor communication skills are making it sound like I'm defending a position, that I don't hold. If anyone here feels like they were abused by their parents, and it's not worth spending any more time with them, or giving them another chance... they're right. That's a deeply personal choice that has nothing to do with me. Being buddhish, I think you should have sympathy for every human being that is suffering, but that does not mean letting them back in your life. I can feel sorry for my grandparents being drafted, and still think they were really cruel human beings who should be avoided at all cost. I think that comes off as sounding contradictory. I also think that slapping is a step in the right direction from beating, which has allowed me to be more aware of peaceful parenting. If I had been beaten as my parents were, I feel like I may have thought it was okay to have children while I still had serious vices, and I may have spanked them. This would not be okay. I just think it's a trap I may have fallen into. It seems really hard to get this across while advocating sympathy, and maybe it's because that word has religious connotations? It's immoral, it's a horrible tragedy that any parent has ever hit any child. I do think that's a new discovery though, and humanity is working on implementation. Again, I apologize if it seems like I'm trying to defend abusers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just feel sorry for anyone who's unhappy. I think it's important to make sure that everyone you know believes in peaceful parenting. I just also learned to forgive my mother after a lot of work, and her really starting from below the ground up. This has been a positive experience for both of us, so I wouldn't want to deny anyone that either. I also wouldn't want to support lacking sympathy, for... well anyone... again, I just think it's always a positive quality. I feel sorry for murderers, because most of them are sad, pathetic, lonely, and abused individuals... that doesn't mean I want to let them out of jail. They still committed a horrible crime that they are personally responsible for, and they must endure the consequences.

Obviously people completely disagree with me here. I don't even know how my last comment was any different than previous comments. In general I don't understand people. I didn't say someone said it ruined my life, it's you making a straw man, by cutting out the sentence right before that sentence. I'm saying that there's a gray area between slapping, and rape, murder, and serial murder, which are the comparisons I'm getting. The third line in your last comment goes straight to the serial murderer example. I don't understand how that has anything to do with having sympathy for someone who was beaten, and then slaps. I was talking about progress being made in the area of hitting children, slowly over time, like the progress we want made on the state. Every single response I've written suggests that slapping is immoral, and there's no excuse for it. Yet, every response to me is about how I'm giving people a pass, and excusing it. I'm pretty sure I should just shut up, because obviously I don't speak English.

Yeah, I think I still have faith in the human spirit. If he had ended it, on the broadcast everyone loved, I think things might have changed... By making it a show, I think he may have been the last thing they needed to suppress revolt. Still, such a terrifying, and evil dystopia, and a beautiful story. The other two you mentioned were really the best. The virtual lover and father created by social media. Very sad, very realistic. Same for the one where the man accuses his wife of having an affair, because he keeps replaying the video of his own life over and over. I never wanted Google glass, but now I want it even less. I'm going to end up some crazy survivalist in the middle of nowhere if things keep going this way, lol. I once wrote a joke, on twitter of all places, that I really fear is going to come true "I think I need a singularity lawyer... I want to make sure it's illegal for someone to download my consciousness and enslave it for eternity". The episode with the social media recreation of a person really touched on that sentiment, but in a much less dystopian fashion.

I agree Mysterion, it is morally wrong, they come up short in that regard. I'll be honest, I don't really understand your point about self deception, avoiding questions, and that making you culpable Kevin. You keep accusing me of excusing the behavior. I do not, it is morally wrong. Do lots of people self deceive? Yes, but also lots of people are incredibly dumb, and their brains have been broken by abuse. They don't have time to self deceive, they're too busy dealing with pain, and maybe the self deception, and avoiding questions comes from them being hit in response to not engaging in those activities. They asked questions, they got the belt, maybe that's how their brain is broken. That would be the difference between conscious and unconscious. To say it's all conscious self deception, and avoiding questions, is basically to say that everyone born before 1950 was evil. I don't think they knew any better, at all, until very recently. In fact, you may even be able to make the historical argument, that before the end of WW2, spanking was preparation for boot camp, where a large percent of young men ended up, before war. "One day you're going to get shot, or stabbed, if you don't listen"... Is that a stretch? Maybe, our history is full of it though. This idea it was always evil, everyone knew it, and they're all immoral people unworthy of sympathy, is a new one and it's a bit confusing to me. If you hit your child today, are you obviously doing something immoral, and choosing to ignore everything we've learned about raising children in the last 50 years? Yes, of course. Was my mother deceiving herself, and responsible for her immoral actions, yes... but they weren't the only actions in her life. That's where things seem to get a bit weird here, the whole "drop of dirty water, in a pool of clean". People all over the world constantly fail to live up to their own moral codes. You do the best you can. I drink a bit too much, and before ever having children, I need to fix that problem. Does having a vice, make me a categorically immoral person unworthy of sympathy? I don't think so, I think it means I have a vice, that I need to work on. My mother came home for work, angry and sad. When the first thing she had to deal with was me having gotten in trouble, or just demanding attention from her, or yelling, she slapped me sometimes. This was a vice, a horrible series of events that really hurt me... but it's not all she did with her life. She also read to me, nurtured me, fed me... I mean, the list of positive things she did for me is unending. To take away sympathy from a person, for ever having done bad things, seems a bit... crazy. That said, there's a reason Louis CK had sympathy for his mom slapping him, but his father beating him, led to "the second I'm old enough, I'm getting away from this man". I think there's a grey area, where sympathy is acceptable, despite it still being categorically cruel and immoral. Rape, and murder, are where sympathy becomes dangerous. Screw those people, they're ruining other human beings lives, and everyone has always known those things were wrong. I don't think slapping ruined my life.