are guilt and innocence State created fictions?

[dsayers]

Before I begin, I want to qualify my question. If I eat an apple, I'm "guilty" of eating that apple is a true statement. I'm talking about on the grander scale. Hopefully I can communicate what I mean:

 

As early as childhood, we're erroneously taught to think of people as good or bad. Cops are automatically good. Somebody sentenced in a courtroom is automatically bad. This is problematic for a number of reasons.

 

For starters, it's overly simplistic. Barring psychopathy and other brain malities, anybody can engage in behaviors that are "good" or "bad." Some people view the exact same behavior (a man stealing bread for his starving child) as both in different contexts. We engage in hundreds of behaviors every day. Categorizing an entire person by one such behavior only is naive.

 

I think one of the benefits for those with artificial power to tell people they can be classified as good or bad is that it creates artificial in groups. The problem with artificial in groups is that it's not easy to see the "good" in the other team or the "bad" in your own team. By telling people to think in this manner, those in power benefit from you being less likely to notice their "bad" behaviors and/or to apologize for them, saying things like "it's an isolated incident," or thinking it's okay because they do more good than bad (even though this could accurately describe somebody they want you to think is the "bad" guy). At the same time, it artificially divides you from the "bad" guys, who can actually be your brethren with regards to those who steal from or threaten all of us equally.

 

In this post, I point out that morality's purpose isn't to identify good and bad, but rather to identify internal inconsistencies. I reference the "flag pole" scenario. For those not aware, the flag pole scenario is a bullshit thought experiment meant to obfuscate morality. As the story goes, some guy by means never identified finds himself stranded at the top of a flagpole. He is able to save himself, but only by breaking a window and entering somebody's home without their permission. In this scenario, morality doesn't tell us if the stranded man or homeowner are good or bad for breaking a window/saving a life or giving advances permission/not consenting ahead of time. But it will help us to understand that the guy on the flag pole is responsible for the damages.

 

That's what got me thinking of guilty and innocent in the "bad/good" guy context. Imagine you were the home owner that happened to. Yeah, the glass breaking could've caused more damage. It frightened you and it was annoying that it happened. Assuming the damages are paid for, perhaps including your inconvenience, there would be no reason to hold a grudge against that person. But it seems people do just that all the time. Look at the Peter Joseph/Stefan Molyneux debate. PJ wasn't able to just claim whatever without addressing the holes in his argument. So rather than revising his theory or addressing the contradiction, he now hates Stef.

 

So I'm curious if guilt/innocence in the context of permanently categorizing people is another State created fiction like "corporation." All the time you say people saying "cop" or "law-abiding citizen" when they mean "person who can do no wrong." Meanwhile, the ruling class is constantly coming up with new ways to label pretty much everybody as "bad" guys. We're told that Snowden is comparable to Manson for example. What do you guys think? I'm sorry the presentation isn't polished; this just came to me and I was hoping we could all mull it over.

[SamuelS]

I think it would be helpful to either use quotations or hypenate "in group"...I stumbled over that a few times.

 

The grouping thing is interesting, something to think about for sure...my first thought is that for a lot of folks its just a way to save time, and for some they're not smart enough to understand nuance so find a leader and take the groups as presented by that leader.

 

Agreed on the flagpole thing. It can actually be an interesting thing to dissect but it's hardly a challenge to UPB or any propertarian system of ethics that I'm aware of -- the homeowner would not be immoral to defend his home, the man on the flagpole only has the prerogative to save his skin...you can batter it around til the cows come home but you're just avoiding the performative contradiction of denying the validity of property rights.

[Will Torbald]

Before I begin, I want to qualify my question. If I eat an apple, I'm "guilty" of eating that apple is a true statement. I'm talking about on the grander scale. Hopefully I can communicate what I mean:

 

As early as childhood, we're erroneously taught to think of people as good or bad. Cops are automatically good. Somebody sentenced in a courtroom is automatically bad. This is problematic for a number of reasons.

 

For starters, it's overly simplistic. Barring psychopathy and other brain malities, anybody can engage in behaviors that are "good" or "bad." Some people view the exact same behavior (a man stealing bread for his starving child) as both in different contexts. We engage in hundreds of behaviors every day. Categorizing an entire person by one such behavior only is naive.

 

I think one of the benefits for those with artificial power to tell people they can be classified as good or bad is that it creates artificial in groups. The problem with artificial in groups is that it's not easy to see the "good" in the other team or the "bad" in your own team. By telling people to think in this manner, those in power benefit from you being less likely to notice their "bad" behaviors and/or to apologize for them, saying things like "it's an isolated incident," or thinking it's okay because they do more good than bad (even though this could accurately describe somebody they want you to think is the "bad" guy). At the same time, it artificially divides you from the "bad" guys, who can actually be your brethren with regards to those who steal from or threaten all of us equally.

 

In this post, I point out that morality's purpose isn't to identify good and bad, but rather to identify internal inconsistencies. I reference the "flag pole" scenario. For those not aware, the flag pole scenario is a bullshit thought experiment meant to obfuscate morality. As the story goes, some guy by means never identified finds himself stranded at the top of a flagpole. He is able to save himself, but only by breaking a window and entering somebody's home without their permission. In this scenario, morality doesn't tell us if the stranded man or homeowner are good or bad for breaking a window/saving a life or giving advances permission/not consenting ahead of time. But it will help us to understand that the guy on the flag pole is responsible for the damages.

 

That's what got me thinking of guilty and innocent in the "bad/good" guy context. Imagine you were the home owner that happened to. Yeah, the glass breaking could've caused more damage. It frightened you and it was annoying that it happened. Assuming the damages are paid for, perhaps including your inconvenience, there would be no reason to hold a grudge against that person. But it seems people do just that all the time. Look at the Peter Joseph/Stefan Molyneux debate. PJ wasn't able to just claim whatever without addressing the holes in his argument. So rather than revising his theory or addressing the contradiction, he now hates Stef.

 

So I'm curious if guilt/innocence in the context of permanently categorizing people is another State created fiction like "corporation." All the time you say people saying "cop" or "law-abiding citizen" when they mean "person who can do no wrong." Meanwhile, the ruling class is constantly coming up with new ways to label pretty much everybody as "bad" guys. We're told that Snowden is comparable to Manson for example. What do you guys think? I'm sorry the presentation isn't polished; this just came to me and I was hoping we could all mull it over.

 

The state only categorizes guilt and innocence in regards to its own laws. In this simple way, yes, these categories are only state created fictions. If by some random quantum accident the law of the state matches any objective theory of morality, then we would say that in that particular case the law was not acting on the basis of fiction. I think the first part of the argument deals with tribalism and otherization. Very primitive and basic instincts inherited from prehistoric times when savegery and cannibalism wasn't unheard of and meeting a competing tribe could have very well been lethal. And so people became highly entrenched in their own in-groups while demonizing others. Now everyone wants to be part of a clique, a tribe, a religion, a forum, a movement, an "ism" and so on. It satisfies that instinct without having to use it in negative ways.

[Des]

I think the idea of proving guilt arises because of statism.  Whether or not Oscar Pistorius is guilty, some of us may be willing to have him in our neighbourhood, some of us may not. Without statism I expect there will be borders and rules for entry, and these rules will sort people without the expense of coming to a conclusion in a case like this, in a quite unnecessary one-size-fits-all manner. Who actually wants him temporarily out of their neighbourhood? Temporarily locking him up meets no-one's need for security. Temporarily removing dodgy types from us, and later re-releasing them amongst us, keeps us scared enough to want a heavy-handed police force. On the other hand, [temporarily] removing someone who is no threat to me, just wastes my resources.

 

Why do we need to be told from on high who is and who is not guilty? Are not the accessible facts enough for us to estimate who can safely be permitted to enter our suburb?

 

I need to estimate if a person is dangerous or not dangerous,  mere conclusions about his past guilt or innocence are inadequate, and, where these conclusions are dubious, they are really not much use.

[luxfelix]

I'm currently reading about the rise of the papacy after the fall of Rome and so, with that filter, I find similarities between the "guilty" and "innocent" categories and the medieval psychology regarding divine sanctions of violence; perhaps these categories are state and religiously created fictions?

 

(Though to many the state is religion as well...  )

[bugzysegal]

Guilt or innocence can be preserved in a stateless society, though perhaps they don't have to be. The cop thing, obviously yeah, they are supposed to do no wrong...or at least it's advisable that private security officers act more reliably with integrity than the average person. Unfortunately due to the state monopoly that's not how it works, but there's no reason it couldn't work that way. In fact Stef pointed to private security in Detroit, noting that they had fast response with low complaints and highly qualified professionals. Also, there were dramatically lower reported instances of matters being solved through violence. "Law-abiding-citizens" simply haven't been caught breaking laws yet. I don't necessarily think people support the "in-group" "out-group" in as regimented a fashion as you portray.

 

Brehon law was a system of private law that worked through the awarding of damages. It took place during a period of Irish anarchy from 700 to 1700 (roughly). There were no jails and I think it was basically like a cross between a classical court system and DROs. Cool stuff. 

 

So as to the actual question of the thread, no not really. These words would still be applicable in a stateless society that had conflicts to resolve. Are they currently words only used by state courts, because they have the monopoly on the court system? Well yeah.

 

Are there performative contradictions in the state of nature? Was there ever a time in the period when man was developing language, before which there were no words for property or ownership? Were men and women doing anything contradictory when they would wander over to neighbors and take food they had bunched together? 

In this post, I point out that morality's purpose isn't to identify good and bad, but rather to identify internal inconsistencies. I reference the "flag pole" scenario. For those not aware, the flag pole scenario is a bullshit thought experiment meant to obfuscate morality. As the story goes, some guy by means never identified finds himself stranded at the top of a flagpole. He is able to save himself, but only by breaking a window and entering somebody's home without their permission. In this scenario, morality doesn't tell us if the stranded man or homeowner are good or bad for breaking a window/saving a life or giving advances permission/not consenting ahead of time. But it will help us to understand that the guy on the flag pole is responsible for the damages.

 

That's what got me thinking of guilty and innocent in the "bad/good" guy context. Imagine you were the home owner that happened to. Yeah, the glass breaking could've caused more damage. It frightened you and it was annoying that it happened. 

 

These concerns of being frightened and cleaning up some glass should be way low on the list of things the homeowner is concerned about. The fact that some persons life was saved, whereas there could have been a senseless death should be enthralling, The person who sees someone dangling in front of their window and nails boards across the window so there is no way the guy can break in, is not just an asshole. they are evil. Are they the greatest kind of evil, well no. Regular murder is worse than letting die. For one, someone who goes out and murders is a way bigger potential threat than someone who just won't help you, or will actively arrange their property so that you can't help yourself. That being said, if evil has a meaning, the above fits into it.

[Des]

I think one of the benefits for those with artificial power to tell people they can be classified as good or bad is that it creates artificial in groups. The problem with artificial in groups is that it's not easy to see the "good" in the other team or the "bad" in your own team. By telling people to think in this manner, those in power benefit from you being less likely to notice their "bad" behaviors and/or to apologize for them, saying things like "it's an isolated incident," or thinking it's okay because they do more good than bad (even though this could accurately describe somebody they want you to think is the "bad" guy). At the same time, it artificially divides you from the "bad" guys, who can actually be your brethren with regards to those who steal from or threaten all of us equally.

Yes, irrational "in groups".

I think there is a rational "in group", and that is the group of all who commit to following at least the minimum ethic of no aggression, and who follow through on that commitment. Those who will not commit to that, or whose behaviour indicates a false claim of commitment, are the rational "out group", and we should be protecting ourselves from all of those - also hopefully converting as many as possible of those to the "in group", to swing the balance of power.