Why is it bad to break someone's leg with a baseball bat?

[afterzir]

a) it causes pain which is bad

b) it is a violation of property (i.e. one's body)

c) it hinders one from achieving his/her goals

d) other

 

I have a unique definition of gov't: it is a group people who act like oracles, representing society, and using violence to carry out their wishes [politicians, in other words].

 

-It is totally by chance if a slave satisfies a goal of his because he has 0% autonomy and the master has 100%

-it is totally by chance if a true democrat satisfies a goal of his because voting is completely arbitrary 

-it is totally by chance if an oracle seeker satisfies a goal of his because the future is unknowable to the oracle.

 

Hence gov't is pure arbitrariness.

 

So, although choice b) seems the best, could choice c) also work?

(I'm working on an ethical philosophy based on goals [telos] so I'm interested to hear)

Also, is there another possible explanation ( i.e. choice d) )?

 

Thanks 

[Wuzzums]

Is it bad to break someone's leg?

 

Simple question if we use the NAP. If I'm initiating force then it's bad, if it's self defence then it's good.

[dsayers]

What is meant by "bad"? The act of breaking a leg with a baseball bat is simultaneously claiming that property rights are valid and invalid. The real world tells that something cannot be itself and the opposite of itself simultaneously.

[shirgall]

http://www.garvan.org.au/news-events/news/bone-fractures-can-double-or-triple-mortality-for-up-to-10-years

 

In 2014, over 192,000 Americans died from non-firearm traumas (most of them falls).

 

Broken bones are not a joke.

[Max Hartford]

 The act of breaking a leg with a baseball bat is simultaneously claiming that property rights are valid and invalid.

 

No it's not: it just involves a transfer of property rights. The aggressor party temporarily takes ownership of the leg, breaks it, and then returns the pieces to its owner.

[dsayers]

No it's not: it just involves a transfer of property rights. The aggressor party temporarily takes ownership of the leg, breaks it, and then returns the pieces to its owner.

You mean INVOLUNTARY transfer of property rights. The assailant's use of their own body asserts that consent is required to use the body of another. My claim stands.

[Max Hartford]

You mean INVOLUNTARY transfer of property rights. The assailant's use of their own body asserts that consent is required to use the body of another. My claim stands.

 

Or it just asserts that power is required to use the body of another. The assailant has the power to use their own body, and enough left over to take over the use of another's temporarily. The victim lacks the power to protect themselves: hence they lose their property temporarily.

[Worlok]

Because a shotgun to the kneecaps works better.

 

Violates NAP

 

Violates their property (self)

 

Causes legitimate unwanted physical pain - refer to #2-3

 

Nancy Kerrigan - refer to #2-3 and c

 

 

The reason NAP is cited so much is because it can be found as a base principle of most immoral things.

[ClearConscience]

What is meant by "bad"? The act of breaking a leg with a baseball bat is simultaneously claiming that property rights are valid and invalid. The real world tells that something cannot be itself and the opposite of itself simultaneously.

Is this real?  Could you please use a little common sense?  Killing is bad when you're being killed, but it's good when cancer is being killed... so how can killing be itself and the opposite of itself?

 

Killing cancer is good because killing harmful things is good.  Killing things that are beneficial is bad.  You're beneficial to me.  We have conversations.  You're productive.  You bring happiness to the lives of others around you.  That's why killing you is bad.

 

The same is true for breaking legs.  If breaking a leg is beneficial, then breaking the leg is good.  If breaking a leg is harmful, then it's bad.  There are very few times where breaking a leg is beneficial.  You're breaking something.  Breaking things is usually harmful.  One instance I can think of, off the top of my head, when breaking a leg is beneficial is when it's preventing a greater harm.  By breaking the Nazi's leg, you can help several Jews escape being tortured and killed.  It's that simple.

[shirgall]

Is this real?  Could you please use a little common sense?  Killing is bad when you're being killed, but it's good when cancer is being killed... so how can killing be itself and the opposite of itself?

 

By using "killing" in two difference senses yet treating the two the same. This is why the proper reading of a certain commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" and not "Thou shalt not kill."

[violet]

I don't think you can talk about badness/immorality in a universal way. It must be in terms of human society since, for instance, animals are incapable of this morality. On the other hand, humans have the ability to empathize, consider the future, and dwell on right versus wrong.

 

It's true that there is an option to choose the "law of the jungle" (brute power wins), but many strive for a higher moral order because that is how a civilization is formed and how humans evolve beyond the animal world. It is immoral to break someone's leg by the "law of the human" because it is the aggressive violation of another life. The "law of the jungle" states that you are the most important being and that anything that is in your self-interest is justified. The "law of the human" is different in that it places the other (human) as an equal and denies you the right to violate their life/property.

[EclecticIdealist]

To answer the question of whether something is "good" or "bad", we must first define the scope of the moral judgement.  If the scope is solely the individual doing the breaking, then whether or not it is deemed "good" or "bad" is dependent entirely upon the ideals of the individual, what is it they desire? Does their action further that desire or not? If it furthers that desire or promotes that ideal, it is deemed good, if it frustrates it, it is deemed bad, and if it neither furthers, nor impedes the accomplishment or maintenance of that ideal, it is judged neither good nor bad. This is the concept of morality that is commonly held by most Objectivists and others consumed with selfishness (not merely self-interest as they claim, as their self-interest is often at the expense of others).

 

If the scope is that of the two (or more) parties, involved, then it really depends upon each individual's perspective  If the scope is society as a whole, then whether it is deemed good or bad is essentially the average opinion of all members of society. Generally, most of society would regard the breaking of a person's leg as bad because they would view the negative to the person whose leg is broken to outweigh the positive to the person who broke the person's leg, and any positive that might predictably be gained by society as a whole. Some bone-setters and pain-management specialists might consider it to be beneficial to their own interests as it will bring them business which is beneficial to society; but the net-negative to society would generally override this view; especially to those who may need to make adjustments to support the injured person, as well as those empathizing with the person whose leg is broken, not wishing to endure such pain and inconvenience themselves.

 

Morality from an individual standpoint is about what is best for the survival and furtherance of the ideals of the individual. From the standpoint of society, it is about what is best for the survival of the members of society and the furtherance of the collective ideals of society. The vast majority of moral rules have their origin in our survival instincts programmed into us by genetics and other natural factors, as well as those lessons we learn early on from those that nurture us from the time we are born until the time we become autonomous members of society. One of the most powerful socializing instincts is that of empathy--the ability to imagine ourselves in the situation of another and experience the suffering or joy of another. We then respond in a manner as to minimize the suffering and maximize the joy of another as if they are ourselves. There also exists within most of us a desire to cooperate with others for mutual benefit or gain. These and other natural instincts are at the root of our instinctual or empirical individual and collective moral judgments.

[ValueOfBrevity]

Initiate of force is immoral (bad). 

No further proof is need.

[RichardY]

d) It damages the bat.

[A4E]

I don't think you can talk about badness/immorality in a universal way. It must be in terms of human society since, for instance, animals are incapable of this morality.

Oh? That is new information to me. Could you please explain how so many animal and insect species are nice to individuals of the same species?

 

Lets take Sea Gulls. Why would they tolerate or be nice to each other, and even cooperate to get food and keep predators away from nests belonging to any sea gulls nearby? According to you, animals are incapable of morality, so how is this happening?

 

 

humans have the ability to empathize, consider the future, and dwell on right versus wrong.

In your view, can any other life form besides humans on this planet have these abilities?

 

How do you know if they can or can not?

 

 

It's true that there is an option to choose the "law of the jungle" (brute power wins), but many strive for a higher moral order because that is how a civilization is formed and how humans evolve beyond the animal world.

The scientific explanation of an animal is, among other things, a multicellular eukaryotic organism that can move, and have an eventually fixed body plan, and must ingest other organisms to survive. Some can also undergo metamorphosis. Humans are scientifically considered belonging to this group of lifeforms.

 

A lot of animal species forms societies of their own, ie birds, lions, seals, wolves, ants, elephants, dolphins, bees, which would suggest they have some kind of higher moral order.

 

I am curious to know how humans have evolved beyond this general tendency.

[violet]

Lets take Sea Gulls. Why would they tolerate or be nice to each other, and even cooperate to get food and keep predators away from nests belonging to any sea gulls nearby? According to you, animals are incapable of morality, so how is this happening?

 

In your view, can any other life form besides humans on this planet have these abilities? How do you know if they can or can not?

 

A lot of animal species forms societies of their own, ie birds, lions, seals, wolves, ants, elephants, dolphins, bees, which would suggest they have some kind of higher moral order. I am curious to know how humans have evolved beyond this general tendency.

[1] When animals cooperate and help one another, my opinion is that it is simply instinct. As far as I can see, they do not have the brain power available to weigh the consequences of one action over another and make a "moral" decision. Instead, they have instincts that allow them and their communities to survive. Any animal that lives in a social group will probably have altruistic instincts. I differentiate conscious morality from instinctive altruism.

 

[2] In my opinion, only human beings have moral agency. That is why we don't hold a dolphin accountable if they kill a human. They might be highly intelligent, but they do not have moral agency. I don't know this as an absolute fact. It is my opinion and attempt to approximate the truth based on what I know.

 

[3] Again, I think "societies" of animals are devloped based on helping instincts. The difference between a human civilization and animal society is in the ability to move from instinct to rational thought (and ability to moralize). Humans are certainly animals, and I think they certainly have altruistic instincts, but they also go one step beyond that.

[A4E]

[1] When animals cooperate and help one another, my opinion is that it is simply instinct. As far as I can see, they do not have the brain power available to weigh the consequences of one action over another and make a "moral" decision. Instead, they have instincts that allow them and their communities to survive. Any animal that lives in a social group will probably have altruistic instincts. I differentiate conscious morality from instinctive altruism.

Then please tell me why in social hierarchical groups, (present in mammals, such as wolves or monkeys, and also present among birds, fish, and other creatures), individuals down on the ladder are generally conforming to the "moral" rules. They might 'choose' not to attempt to mate with higher standing individuals, or mate at all, or take any other privileges.

 

For example there are these monkeys around hot springs in a cold part of Asia somewhere, where the "royalty" can freely use the hot springs, while the others are 'choosing' to not jump into the hot springs. How is this happening? EDIT: I tried to find some evidence of this, but it might have been a bit of misinformation from tv long ago. Its Japans snow monkeys btw.

 

 

[2] In my opinion, only human beings have moral agency. That is why we don't hold a dolphin accountable if they kill a human. They might be highly intelligent, but they do not have moral agency. I don't know this as an absolute fact. It is my opinion and attempt to approximate the truth based on what I know.

One could argue that animals are held accountable for killing humans, or their livestock, all the time, and then punished for it, (killed).

 

But it is likely that a man with livestock is not giving moral agency to predators when he is protecting his livestock, or a society giving it to a wolf for killing a child, because one can perfectly remove all moral agency from all lifeforms and still protect a peaceful society. But no one here seems to be significantly interested in talking about that, which is fine.

 

 

[3] Again, I think "societies" of animals are developed based on helping instincts. The difference between a human civilization and animal society is in the ability to move from instinct to rational thought (and ability to moralize). Humans are certainly animals, and I think they certainly have altruistic instincts, but they also go one step beyond that

How? I am curious.

 

I am advocating that animals are very much so capable of rational thought. If you want to see a scary example, look up "smart crows" on youtube.

[Des]

But it is likely that a man with livestock is not giving moral agency to predators when he is protecting his livestock, or a society giving it to a wolf for killing a child, because one can perfectly remove all moral agency from all lifeforms and still protect a peaceful society. But no one here seems to be significantly interested in talking about that, which is fine.

Okay, so then you will tell your small child: "don't snatch toys from other children, because if you do, I may hit you, because I want you to behave how I say you should behave". Is that your plan?

 

At which point do you change your stance on the motivation for your child to avoid stealing, from fear of you, to some other motivation, and what motivation and explanation do you offer?

 

Also, will the child you have hit and threatened, care enough about your view of his best interests, to listen and conform enough to social standards, to avoid being ostracised or killed?  

 

Will you have to create an imaginary deity to continue the threatening into adulthood, and what happens if your adult offspring discovers that the deity is not real?

 

Going back to the beginning of the chain of questions: If you will tell your child it is bad to snatch toys from other children, what will you mean, and how will you explain that meaning, as the child grows older?

Because you would be sued for medical malpractice, due to bruising and splintering not at all appropriate to the medical procedure that is the valid reason for breaking the leg.

 

If you were not breaking the leg for valid medical reason, then it is bad for your reputation with other people.

 

Oh, there we have it, that is the uniting reason. Reputation. It's bad for your reputation, whether or not there is a medical reason to break the leg.

[algernon]

"Why is it bad to break someone's leg with a baseball bat?"

 

Simple answer is it's not. What if someone asks you to hit them in the leg with a baseball bat?

 

Is it immoral to punch someone in the head and knock them out? What about boxing or MMA?

 

The situation determines the morality of the action, not the action itself.

[A4E]

Okay, so then you will tell your small child: "don't snatch toys from other children, because if you do, I may hit you, because I want you to behave how I say you should behave". Is that your plan?

No.

 

We all come with plug and play anti immorality. Anger. Which means that the other child is going to get angry and perhaps do something in anger if the immoral kid is not reacting positively to the anger.

 

This is last resort discussion though, as children should be prepared in advance of property values and others.

 

In the case of a stronger kid stealing from a weaker kid, that would go under taking by force, and so should be treated similarly to adult cases, only that it is subject to the gravity of the situation, (children stealing from each other is not considered very serious). The idea is to show consequences. The victim getting angry will do that automatically, but if the victim is too weak to have any potential retribution, then perhaps that should be handled by someone else. But that does not mean we need to get violent.

 

And in the case of anarchy solutions, I don't know how consequence solutions should, or will be handled. Just that moral agency is a dangerous red herring because immoral actions that harm society can be excused and tolerated. Violence focused Muslims are protected by various excuses ("its their culture", war victim, white supremacy, "its only the extremists", religion of peace). I would classify being loyal to a book that commands all non Muslims to be killed, as an immoral action. Sorry for steering the conversation there, and using that 'card', but I really can not help it in these times.

 

 

Going back to the beginning of the chain of questions: If you will tell your child it is bad to snatch toys from other children, what will you mean, and how will you explain that meaning, as the child grows older?

Everyone knows children understand ownership. Basic preparations would be to say "Other children will have toys there as well, but you have to ask them first if you want to play with them. You have to respect it if they say no, and just find something else to do instead.". I would also encourage creativity and negotiation, but that should happen automatically as well if the child is already in such a path.

 

The rest of your post does not seem to me as essential to this discussion.

[AnCap AllCaps]

a) it causes pain which is bad

b) it is a violation of property (i.e. one's body)

c) it hinders one from achieving his/her goals

d) other

 

IMO other. Pain does not imply a moral bad. I may like being choked during sex or having hot wax dripped on me, I'm sure you can think of many more painful acts involving sex or not, in which we willingly participate and call it pleasurable.

 

The moral wrong comes about THROUGH CONSENT! If I ask you to drip hot wax on me - moral good, if I did not - moral bad.

 

If I ask you to break my legs, I insist, break my legs now, use this bat... Then that is a moral good. You have not gone against my will.

 

----

 

You may ask WHY is consent the issue? It is a simple matter of principle. Every individual has a body. Each individual (on the whole) insist others not violate their will for their body. SO WHAT right!?!? Well if there are 10 of us in a room that maintain this, we each have things we insist others not do to our bodies without consent, what if Bob defies this and goes against consent? What principle has Bob implied? Bob has implied that your simple insistence that others not do things to your body is not a valid reason to keep others from defying that consent. So now what? The other 9 in the room saw what Bob did, it threatens our notion of consent, we are going to kill him (extreme reaction, replace with a less extreme reaction if you like). ON WHAT BASIS CAN BOB OBJECT TO US KILLING HIM?!?! What can he say, "I don't consent to that action on my body?" He has just convicted himself. (This reaction is like a self defense instance, Bob has defied consent, he has set the stage for his own consent to be violated).

 

When one defies consent, he throws his only defense of his own body out the window.

[violet]

 

Then please tell me why in social hierarchical groups, (present in mammals, such as wolves or monkeys, and also present among birds, fish, and other creatures), individuals down on the ladder are generally conforming to the "moral" rules. They might 'choose' not to attempt to mate with higher standing individuals, or mate at all, or take any other privileges.

 

For example there are these monkeys around hot springs in a cold part of Asia somewhere, where the "royalty" can freely use the hot springs, while the others are 'choosing' to not jump into the hot springs. How is this happening? EDIT: I tried to find some evidence of this, but it might have been a bit of misinformation from tv long ago. Its Japans snow monkeys btw.

 

Right, I've seen those monkeys in a documentary. I suppose the way I see it is that monkeys understand cause and effect, but can't take it to an abstract or theoretical level. I think morality requires a big picture view of the situation. It's about understanding the system in which you're living, not just your own particular experience of life.

 

The monkey learns where it can and cannot go based on experience, which is modulated by the social rules in the group. These social rules are not considered at an abstract level, or planned and implemented. Rather, they are a result of instinct: "I want the nice heat in this spring - I'm going to keep this other monkey out because I can - I'm bigger or have other monkeys on my side."

 

The difference in humans is that they can take that same hot spring, and wonder about what it would be like to be that poor little monkey shivering in the snow. And then wonder why they think they have the right to take whatever they want just because they have the power to do it now. They can go beyond the present, and look at other possibilities, forming ideas about morality.

[A4E]

 

 

Right, I've seen those monkeys in a documentary. I suppose the way I see it is that monkeys understand cause and effect, but can't take it to an abstract or theoretical level. I think morality requires a big picture view of the situation. It's about understanding the system in which you're living, not just your own particular experience of life.

 

The monkey learns where it can and cannot go based on experience, which is modulated by the social rules in the group. These social rules are not considered at an abstract level, or planned and implemented. Rather, they are a result of instinct: "I want the nice heat in this spring - I'm going to keep this other monkey out because I can - I'm bigger or have other monkeys on my side."

 

The difference in humans is that they can take that same hot spring, and wonder about what it would be like to be that poor little monkey shivering in the snow. And then wonder why they think they have the right to take whatever they want just because they have the power to do it now. They can go beyond the present, and look at other possibilities, forming ideas about morality.

 

That is an interesting perspective. I disagree that any perceived social rules can be a result of instinct. An instinct for me is things like getting very scared when you see a snake or a spider, and getting aroused if you see someone appealing of the opposite gender, and reacting if something is touching you unexpectedly.

 

My position is that, just like in human societies, the monkeys will learn over time what they are not allowed to do within the society. And what position they see themselves having in the society. So I would say that I also disagree with you that they can not see the big picture view of their situation. In a group of monkeys like that, I am certain that everyone knows everyone and have made a big picture view of the group, and are relating to one another based on that. Just like humans do. And just about every other social animal.