labmath2 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 If you are involved in something that you consider to be immoral, are you obligated to stop or if you know someone that is, are you obligated to cut ties with them or even take action against them? I know people that use physical force to discipline their children. I could report them to the authorities, but i cannot be sure the kids would be better off in a foster home. I cannot force them to negotiate with their kids. I do not want to cut ties with them because they can assist me in different ways and i do not believe they are immoral as much as i believe they are misguided. By maintaining my relationship with them, i can make little progress over time that may help the kid out instead of just leaving him to his violent parents. While i understand this will sound like an excuse, I am sure even Stefan pays his taxes even though he believes it is theft because to refuse to do so will likely result in worse outcome. Does that mean we can concede where we believe more harm will be done by acting in the moral way? This would not be as much a problem for if i did not consider the fact that if enough people independently make this kind of concession, it can lead to wide-scale immoral behavior that ends up harming a lot more people. Does that mean i am obligated to act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 You are only obligated to act morally, which includes the explicit and implicit contracts that you make. I believe you made two errors in your post. The first is that you implied that it's not immoral to do a thing if the person is misguided. The second is that you said that Stef had a choice in paying his taxes or not. I believe both of these things are mistaken. People have to be misguided, even if it's willful ignorance in order to do evil things. The bad guys in the movies that we love are those bad guys which turn an evil act into a tragically distorted "virtue". Nobody, I think, tells themselves that they are glad to do something that is unreservedly evil. And it's not what people think that makes something good or bad, it's the logic itself that we look at. It's immoral for people to abuse children for very specific reasons, right? And do any of them include what people think about it? No... And Stef has no choice in paying his taxes. He will get royally screwed if he doesn't pay his taxes. At some point the threats will escalate to murder. So, no. That's not a fair comparison. You have a choice in whether you associate with bad people or not. And I don't know what the best choice is. To go or stay... Have you talked to them about what they are doing and why it's not something they should be doing? If so, then good for you! You've done something most people will not. If not, then I'm not sure that your argument makes any sense. You aren't helping the children in that case. If they continue to hit or otherwise abuse / neglect their children despite your protestations, then to continue would only drain you emotionally and it wouldn't be toward your goal of helping the children. It seems to me is that the only option is to say something, make it an issue in your relationship with them that needs resolution. Be honest with yourself and them and be gentle but assertive that it's a problem. Then it's in their hands. You've given them the opportunity to learn and grow and stop the abuse, and they can either take it, or they won't. That would sort of make sense to me, anyway. Speaking generally. I hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labmath2 Posted March 28, 2014 Author Share Posted March 28, 2014 I am not sure i agree with your arguments. I think there are those who do things that they know are wrong, but do it anyways because of what they gain from it. But these people have a culture where they were physically punished as kids and "they turned out alright." They also believe in things like spare the rod and spoil the child. To them its not the outcome that they justify, but the act itself. The argument that Stefan has no choice implies he cannot do otherwise. I am not sure in what sense you mean he has no choice, but he still certainly get to decide if he files taxes. By your logic, it would seem Socrates could not choose to tell the truth and those who went against the church knowing full well they would be executed could not choose to do so. They did choose to do so, so unless you have a threat to life exception to being moral, i disagree that Stefan does not have a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 With regards to your title, you don't have to choose between virtue or well being. Virtue and well being are linked to each other, being virtuous is the most effective way to increase your well being. Also, I would advise you not to think in terms of "force" and "obligation". You can never force people to stop doing bad things, because if you try to force them they will just become defensive. But if you approach people with the genuine belief that they are misguided and in need of guidance, then they are much more likely to respond. In your situation, you're not obligated to do anything, but you want to be virtuous because it's best for the children, it's best for the parents, and it's best for your own well being. So just do what is most effective. Gather the evidence on spanking, print it out, meet up with them. Tell them that you genuinely belief that they care for their children and don't want to hurt them, and show them that what they're doing now is actually very harmful and only leads to more problems along the way both for their children as well as for them. Or, if at all possible, don't start with their children, start with them and their own childhood experiences. If you can help them reconnect to how they felt when they were being spanked as children you are much more likely to succeed. Just open the dialogue, make this a topic of discussion, and work towards non aggression. You understand these people, I'm sure you'll be able to have some impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I am not sure i agree with your arguments. I think there are those who do things that they know are wrong, but do it anyways because of what they gain from it. But these people have a culture where they were physically punished as kids and "they turned out alright." They also believe in things like spare the rod and spoil the child. To them its not the outcome that they justify, but the act itself. But in neither case does it reference the logic that informs the immoral actions themselves. A proposition is either true or it is not. It is either true that hitting children is immoral, or it is not. Barring very particular propositions about the agreements we make (a dollar bill is valuable because other people believe it is), it matters not at all what people think about it. In this case "hitting children is immoral" doesn't require any agreement to be true, otherwise we are beholden to cultural relativism, which as is demonstrated in UPB cannot establish objective morality. The argument that Stefan has no choice implies he cannot do otherwise. I am not sure in what sense you mean he has no choice, but he still certainly get to decide if he files taxes. By your logic, it would seem Socrates could not choose to tell the truth and those who went against the church knowing full well they would be executed could not choose to do so. They did choose to do so, so unless you have a threat to life exception to being moral, i disagree that Stefan does not have a choice. I think you know what I mean. That is, I think it's quite obvious and I'm not sure if you are being obtuse or if I really am creating a distinction without a difference as you suggest. I do not mean that Stef is physically unable to avoid paying taxes. I mean that the consequences are such that it he might as well be unable (morally speaking), being that he'd be royally screwed for not doing it. The question is of responsibility, and not of physical capacity, right? And it seems that we should be able to take for granted that a person held at gun point is not morally responsible for the actions that the gun holder demands. But you are under no such compulsion. You may be inconvenienced in the short term, but no one has a gun to your head telling you to see these people. And to compare the two as if they were equivalent is, ... inaccurate, ... to say the least. I'm not telling you to do anything. You asked the question and I provided a case and some corrections. You felt it important to ask, so I think it's fair to say that you feel a need to do something differently even if it's the way you negotiate with yourself around the issue. Personally, I don't suspect that you can be happy with abusers. I don't think there is any discrepancy between virtue and happiness as you suggest. At least in the long term. It's really unpleasant to confront people. It can be dreadful, anxiety-provoking insecure kind of stuff. I totally sympathize with a fear of confronting people who are doing immoral things. If you don't want to, then don't. But just don't tell yourself falsehoods about it is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labmath2 Posted March 28, 2014 Author Share Posted March 28, 2014 But in neither case does it reference the logic that informs the immoral actions themselves. A proposition is either true or it is not. It is either true that hitting children is immoral, or it is not. Barring very particular propositions about the agreements we make (a dollar bill is valuable because other people believe it is), it matters not at all what people think about it. In this case "hitting children is immoral" doesn't require any agreement to be true, otherwise we are beholden to cultural relativism, which as is demonstrated in UPB cannot establish objective morality. I am not sure what you mean by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I am not sure what you mean by this. By that I mean that hitting kids is immoral. A rose is a rose is a rose. What people think or say about it doesn't change that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 If they continue to hit or otherwise abuse / neglect their children despite your protestations, then to continue would only drain you emotionally and it wouldn't be toward your goal of helping the children. I would also argue that it would make him culpable. i disagree that Stefan does not have a choice. Nobody pays taxes because they choose to. They pay taxes because people will steal more, kidnap them, put them in places they will be raped, and possibly murder them. Choosing between minor loss and major loss is not the same as being able to choose no loss. Gather the evidence on spanking, print it out, meet up with them. Assault is immoral. I think the facts can be helpful for somebody who is curious upon learning that spanking might be assault. Otherwise, it's like a smoker being slammed with smoking statistics: instant shut down with reinforced aversion to future approaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 it's your decision to make. what about finding people to associate with that don't treat their children this way? the you can work with this family more by choice than feeling like you are giving up your opportunity if you come to the conclusion that the family will continue the child abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts