A Little Evil for the Greater Good?

[davidpbrown]

I'm not entirely sure how to best phrase this, as its a complex area.. but I'm interested to hear the range of opinion.


Two thoughts.. and one central question.

Is it ever excusable to do a little evil for the greater good?


This was in part provoked by the Draw Mohammad thread, which had me hit my head on the keyboard and unsubscribe; so it was useful for that.

It seems that some consider that being offensive is ok, if it draws a better understanding from the offended - or even just on the basic of speculation that it might.


Where do you draw the line?

I expect there are threads like this that collapse into a 'would you kill Hitler' but I'm hoping for something more. Perhaps examples of what is at the boundary of what you consider acceptable might be a useful route to debating this?


More interesting then is a second problem.

I'm wondering about the complexities of the tension between what is good in the short term and what is good in the medium and in the longer term. Compounded then with what is good for 'us' and what is good for 'them'; again in the short, medium and long term - regardless of how us and them are defined.


My own view is that it is only the long and unselfish view that makes any sense; that finding the medium term and, where you can, the short term solutions that match to that longer term, is the only way forward.

Which suggests then that it's worth accepting a short-term failure for long term stability - and I guess sustainability, especially relevant if you're considering economic and political issues.

It strikes me that much of the economic and political strife we see, often stems directly from mistaken short-sightedness and confusions of the differences between people (and also the exaggeration of difference between people, which seems to be a common default mistake - we all seems to over commit, in our opinions of others.)


Also, I don't know if there is a cultural element to the responses to this.

I wonder, for example, if those in the US would, more often, be cavalier with the future and grab the short-term gains where they find them? I'm not suggesting that's necessarily wrong - it always struck me as being slightly reckless but then I wonder could be argued and being bravely optimistic - that the future will sort itself out. The US behaviour and reaction to issues such as healthcare; social welfare and the environment seem to be a flavour of that. And then perhaps there's an inversion of that reaction, for more cautious characters.


So, examples welcomed then of where to draw the line. Could you comfortably do evil for a greater good?.. or is it only organizations and wider systemic activity that can do that willingly?? Some apparently consider that wars for resources are fine - but how to argue with that stupidity?? Must we only learn by pissing on the fence??

[David B]

My personal view is that only rarely is any course of action an unmitigated good or evil.

The best course of action, I suggest, is normally more like a linear programming optimum with a number of conflicting goods and ills. Always, in fact, but sometimes the optimum is at clear top or bottom of the graph.

I see human beings as having heuristics of varying efficacy for looking for the optimum.

David

[BioBeing]

The short answer is that we should strive to do the least amount of evil for the greatest amount of good.

Its a balancing act though, sometimes. And sometimes, it is not always clear what is good and what is evil.

But drawing cartoons is not evil. Killing people for drawing cartoons is.

[Clivedurdle]

Try empathy erosion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/27/the-science-of-empathy?INTCMP=SRCH

[davidpbrown]

The best course of action, I suggest, is normally more like a linear programming optimum with a number of conflicting goods and ills. Always, in fact, but sometimes the optimum is at clear top or bottom of the graph.

I see human beings as having heuristics of varying efficacy for looking for the optimum.

I find that approach quite alarming but I expect a lot of people do the same.

It has me wonder whether people understand that we are progressing. There are apparently a lot of people who doubt progress.

It also has me wonder whether people understand what the future will be. To me the future it rather well defined. It has people more consistent and more rational; less stressed by resources; more inclined to principled action on the basis of understanding progress; and acting with better regard for their fellow man. What then enables steps towards that are rather obvious and equally those actions that detract are also clear.

It's strikes me that that kind of justification - being satisfied with a compromised solution, only encourages bad mistakes. It one of the rare ways I find it really hard to relate to other people. I don't understand the thought process that allows for compromised action, so usually attribute it to thoughtless or confused action instead.

Perhaps this is how Governments work, treating problems like they treat their economics.. simple math without consideration of the wider consequences.. what could possibly go wrong? - the political judgement and resulting forced errors.

Perhaps I've not encountered enough forced errors to know that they are inevitable.

[davidpbrown]

Try empathy erosion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/27/the-science-of-empathy?INTCMP=SRCH

That's interesting .. almost reminds me of some notion of the actor's distance from the effect. I think it was commentary on the economic crisis, and how the perpetrators were blind to consequences for being multiple layers away.

I guess systemic errors occur like that, personal action though is different.

Not sure I can quite get my head around how you can action a holocaust up close and personal though. Perhaps those who do evil have just had their moral sense implode.

[davidpbrown]

But drawing cartoons is not evil. Killing people for drawing cartoons is.

I'd rather not get distracted with this again.. but to answer..

Drawing offensive cartoons is evil, where the offense is the intent. It's a small irritant evil - small e. Yes - free speech blah blah but that element that is the offense, not of just drawing a cartoon but of offending and relishing the offense; on the occasion that it has been done before; and where the offense won't invoke a change in those already challenged previously - it's not good.. and specifically it's evil because it fuels the inverted position. If still in doubt see that Empathy Erosion article.. as that characterizes my thought on what can be the expected outcome from offensive cartoons.. speculation of the good it does aside.
So let's substitute the term "evil" with the term "empathy erosion". Empathy erosion can arise because of corrosive emotions, such as bitter resentment, or desire for revenge, or blind hatred, or desire to protect. In theory these are transient emotions, the empathy erosion is reversible. But empathy erosion can be the result of more permanent psychological characteristics.

Yes, killing people for drawing cartoons is obviously a much larger order of magnitude Evil, if that really does need clarifying.




Anyway back on topic.. not to be too obvious but perhaps notions of what is good and what is evil affects people's good judgment on what is appropriate. So, what we see of people's actions may not just be simply the consideration of where to make a balance?

[mood2]

Try empathy erosion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/27/the-science-of-empathy?INTCMP=SRCH

loved that article, thanks

[Rie]

If by evil we mean doing bad or hurtful things to others by word of mouth or deed then it's better for the future of ouir species that we go easy on people, live and let live.

To make the word EVIL as I have spelt it in caps is making a monster out of normal fallible human behaviour.

[Prosthetic Head]

A Little Evil for the Greater Good? Im fine with it.

Lets bring up over population now. Its dire. Like a century ago.

[davidpbrown]

A Little Evil for the Greater Good? Im fine with it.

Lets bring up over population now. Its dire. Like a century ago.

That's an ambiguous post but it's an excuse to note that a lot of evil is done in an effort to resolve perceived problems rather than actual problems. The assertion of perceived problems as truths is also used as a route to force action, when it's not necessarily required.


Perhaps you can offer an example?.. What evil contributes to Good?

A lot of excuses for evil action are misguided or simple helpful disguise for greed and self interest.

[toker]

I don't understand the thought process that allows for compromised action, so usually attribute it to thoughtless or confused action instead.
You usually make a lot of sense to me, but I don't get that point. How else can we get along, if we don't compromise? Should we best be homogeneous?

[davidpbrown]

You usually make a lot of sense to me, but I don't get that point. How else can we get along, if we don't compromise? Should we best be homogeneous?

As I suggested in reply to David B above, being satisfied with a compromised solution only encourages bad mistakes. David B had outlined the notion of finding the best simple balance between a number of conflicting goods and ills.

When interacting with others we should not knowingly inflict our stupidity on them. That is, what is in our selfish interest should not knowingly conflict with their best interests. It's like Principle of charity (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Principle_of_Charity) when arguing. So, homogeneous in approach perhaps.


It's a complicated area, specifically because there are multiple tensions to consider to resolve the 'best' solution. However, it should not be simply a consideration of what is good and bad for 'us', it should also be a wider consideration of what is good and bad for 'them'.

In interacting with others, there is an argument that the better way for people to develop is through challenge. So, challenging them to defend their own interests maybe isn't unreasonable - a competitive environment. However, when we are are not equals and we find ourselves in the dominant position, where we have opportunity to easily exploit others or to inflict stress, we should perhaps hesitate to consider how our actions conflict with their own best interests; are we just repressing or exploiting the opportunity unreasonably? The Draw Mohammad was an example of where no change in their position (the good) is obviously going to arise from the repetition and yet the offense (the evil) might fairly be expected - that is unless they just pity our stupidity, this time.


Where we do inflict distress on others for our own short-term interests, I'd suggest that conflicts with our long term interests - it postpones the day when we find common ground having all progressed to everything we can become, where these simple conflicts have been resolved.


'Compromised action', or the stupidity of doing a little evil for a greater good, arises from a number of sources. As I suggested above, I do not see how proper consideration can allow for action that is compromised by evil, so I usually attribute that to thoughtless or confused action instead. That is, I think there is always a good solution that does not require an evil.

So, for example, I suspect some mistakes are made reflecting fear of loss - 'the Muslims will win, if we don't pursue them aggressively at every turn'. Fear for our own security - for resources, might be another. However, I'd suggest that the panic that is invoked by fear of the future, is misleading and that it encourages bad mistakes that can make our situation worse, and often will encourage behaviour that helps perpetuate the world's problems, rather than helping resolve them.


The larger systems of politics and economics are inherently more stupid than the individuals that make them and in those areas then are more obvious situations in which we can be aware that the action is not appropriate, despite its meeting simple balance of a number of considerations the like of which David B outlined. Especially then, we need a wider consideration of what is good and evil for 'them' we impact on.


It's that tension then, of individuals becoming satisfied with bad solutions to complex problems which they know are wrong yet decide to endorse or not contest where they have opportunity. These are the mistakes that we saw in the setup to recent wars. Political judgement compromising principled actions and getting it wrong. This is why I think it's so important because it's at that macro level that it most matters that it becomes most obvious - that's where we need good leadership and not just managers that can endorse committee-like resolutions.

I think then a large part of those problems arises from the anticipation of the outcome. The anticipation of a greater good that hasn't been established and that is, in reality, just wishful thinking. To be clear that greater good can be the inverse of a greater evil - disarming Iraq of WMDs for example was the greater good - or was it the access to oil, either way it was a ridiculous tragedy to watch that forced setup to error - those errors were avoidable for these reasons.


So, my question originally was seeking out an argument that is well considered that makes the case for doing evil for a greater good. Some are obviously oblivious to these questions but then at other times we are aware and yet do choose the obviously selfish option and some seem quite content with that.

As Rie suggested
To make the word EVIL .. is making a monster out of normal fallible human behaviour.
but doing so deliberately is what seems odd to me.

I can't yet see a good reason to knowingly do evil. To be clear, self defense is not evil, where another is doing evil to you, but going beyond that defense to the point of aggressive action is evil.

[Xero]

Davidpbrown beat me to the punch on the post, so I deleted mine.

Anyways, I agree fully and echo his thoughts on the subject.

[Prosthetic Head]

A Little Evil for the Greater Good? Im fine with it.

Lets bring up over population now. Its dire. Like a century ago.

That's an ambiguous post but it's an excuse to note that a lot of evil is done in an effort to resolve perceived problems rather than actual problems. The assertion of perceived problems as truths is also used as a route to force action, when it's not necessarily required.


Perhaps you can offer an example?.. What evil contributes to Good?

A lot of excuses for evil action are misguided or simple helpful disguise for greed and self interest.

Not only was it ambiguous, but lazy as well. I was just playing along. You read alot into nothing there. I tend to view it in a similar fashion to what David described. So in that light I am fine whith a little evil.

exp. Take the environmental destruction for instance. There is absolutly no hope of meanigful salvage of the enviornment unless its humans second. If someone is attacked by a shark, in the fucking water...the response should be>> ah, bummer, shouldnt have been in the ocean. End of story. Its just the same bullshit other wise. I might be a bit worn out by giving a shit about things for so long to, but I feel that we place delusional standards onto our selfves in reguards to the enviornment. Im sick of it. Poachers, shoot them dead. Vaccines, fill them with steralizing agents. Chinese homeopathy shop, burn it down. Of, course we have to start with the most overtly evident offenders, and work our way down. :p

[munnki]

To go back, briefly, to the example of the cartoon.

Let's say Tom and a group of his friends think that the Islamic idea (held by some Muslims) that drawing a picture of their prophet is one which is dangerous and spurious in contemporary times. They think that if there is any use in being religious at all, then it is about ethical behaviour between people - one to the other. Let's say that they fear that this particular group is getting so caught up in surface dogma rather than deep ethics that they pose a risk both to themselves, to their societies and, left unchecked, globally. This group, let's say, has a history of killing people who make such drawings and, worse, random murder when books are burnt..etc...

Let's say that they (Tom and his friends) draw pictures which they know will offend but do so and to a large enough degree (let's say billboarding) so that while the first reaction may well be rage that they have wagered that the effect of such a large papering of such drawings may actually be to make the religious realize the foolishness of their dogma.

They do this in the sense that any child whose parents has told them that should the wind change when they make a face - then their face will be stuck that way - who persists in experimentation - will realise that, in fact, the wind and the position of facial features bear no relationship.

They do this in the believe that only through provocative and challenging action can they make their less enlightened brothers realize that what they are holding on to is both foolish and dangerous.

In this sense there is, in fact, no evil in their action but only love. And this is true even if they don't necessarily understand that it is so.

It is my opinion, hence the example, that the great evil that resulted from the last few months - to return to contemporary times - was the great fuss made (even up to the presidential level) to get this American moron to not burn the Ko'ran. No comment should have been made at all - or if it would be made it could be made as 'well, it's probably not clever to burn the book as it's a waste of time - but you shouldn't not do it simply because a bunch of fools might murder somebody as a result - this is the clear evil'.

I'm concerned about the small 'e' and big 'e' argument. I think the only evils here are the misguided beliefs of the American pastor and the misguided beliefs of the Afghani Muslims. I think I see a way out of this...

[BioBeing]

But drawing cartoons is not evil. Killing people for drawing cartoons is.

Drawing offensive cartoons is evil, where the offense is the intent.

I think here you need to define offensive. To some Muslims, ANY depiction of Mo is offensive. Not just the cartoons with bombs for turbans.


:) <-- That is Mohammed

To a fundy Muslim, that would be offensive.

Just like a non-Catholic eating a communion wafer is offensive to (some) Catholics.

I maintain that drawing cartoons and eating crackers should cause not offense. Muslims and Catholics CHOOSE to be offended by these events.

PS - the intent is not to offend, per se, but to make the point that cartoons and crackers are not magical. And that the belief that are magical in some way is a very silly belief.

You bring up compromise as being a bad thing - by refusing to speak out against things you consider absolutely ridiculous, you are compromising. Your desire to not offend someone's religious "sensibilities" prevents you from being completely honest with them.



Burning books is, for the record, way over the line as far as I am concerned. I do not condone burning Korans, Bibles or any other book. True, they are only a book, and can be re-printed. But the intent here, I would say, is usually to offend.

[munnki]

Are Cathos offended by people eating crackers?

[Ozymandias]

There is no such thing as evil, except as defined by moral absolutists. If an action is guaranteed to have a positive outcome (however you define that), then it is a good action. So it isn't possible to "do a little evil for the greater good" since if there is a positive outcome, the action was not evil.

The reason one should abstain from Draw Mohammed day is different. Insulting people's beliefs will not lead to a positive outcome - it will entrench them, and make them think you disrespect them culturally. By doing that you make it impossible for them to ever be your friend. Either this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Muslims think, or it is blatantly not caring what they think at all.

[BioBeing]

Are Cathos offended by people eating crackers?

Oh yes! A cracker (communion wafer) transubstantiates to become the flesh of Jesus. To desecrate a cracker is to harm the very body of Jesus himself.

Have a look here (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php) for some of the email PZ got when he threw one in the trash.

[David B]

Are Cathos offended by people eating crackers?

Only if a priest has said some words over the crackers, apparently.

David

[davidpbrown]

exp. Take the environmental destruction for instance.

The environment is an interesting example because it usually runs to raw natural feedback. However, I'm not sure it's a good example here because there's too much opinion clouding the judgement of what is good and what is bad. I'm more interested in where there is a conscious choice to accept a known evil, than an incidental outcomes from a particular activity.

I am rather assuming that people are deliberate rather than just oblivious; that they do make a choice to do evil and that we aren't all of the mind that we're trying to do good and ignorant of the real effects. If that was true, it would be an odd surprise.


There is no such thing as evil, except as defined by moral absolutists. If an action is guaranteed to have a positive outcome (however you define that), then it is a good action. So it isn't possible to "do a little evil for the greater good" since if there is a positive outcome, the action was not evil.

The notion that evil does not exist, suggests that good does not exist - does anything matter? That is a slightly ridiculous argument, as, if you can consider any one 'thing' better than any other, then you can argue reduction to a notion of good and evil; Good representing contribution to those things that are better and Evil representing contribution to those things that are worse. Also somethings can be both good and evil, they can have elements that contribute to good outputs and also elements that contribute to bad outputs. Your last sentence is just plain wrong - think vector math for that.


the intent is not to offend

Perhaps that's your intent but what I saw of the other thread did seemed to be one flavour of the non contentious and another that was trying deliberately to offend. See how MattShizzle's drawing (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=207835&#post207835) did not have the same intent as Rog's drawing (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=207836&#post207836).

You bring up compromise as being a bad thing
Absolutely it's a bad thing! I think you're mistaking the notion of compromise. I'm not talking about 'the middle way', I'm talking of corrupting what you do with an evil act and consciously doing so.

You also go beyond what I suggest and then infer inaccurate detail. I'm not suggesting anyone should be shy of speaking out against things they consider ridiculous, quite the opposite! Rather I'm suggesting that we should act in ways that are respectful of others, similar to the Principle of Charity (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Principle_of_Charity) when arguing, since that is most effective in winning them around. Being deliberately disrespectful, as FBUG noted, doesn't nothing but entrench them.



In reply to the rest who still aren't convinced..

I don't know if you ever did math but I'd suggest the small evil vector in any poorly considered activity, contributes to the overall balance of the world. It's double worse for not doing a small good in its place. On the basis that there must be activity, why not make the better choice?


The question of deliberately offensive cartoons is slightly different because it's more directly a small evil. Rather than being a perceived requirement of a particular engagement, it's a choice to offend others where it's unlikely to have effect, having been done before. It's odd people are so taken with the idea.. so perhaps a ridiculous example by way of parody..

Imagine I liked kittens (http://i.imgur.com/ShjUf.jpg) but you think that's daft, since they just exploit their host for everything they can get. So you decide to convince me that I have it all wrong; you do a provocative evil. That evil then is the inverse of a good action.. like treading on a kitten. Why would you want to tread on a kitten? Far better to spend your time convincing me that keeping domestic pets dumbs down the lion inside each of them. Especially where you've trod on kittens before, to keep squishing them doesn't help convince me - why do you keep doing that!? Maybe you need religion to keep you on the right path! .. I don't know, perhaps don't listen to me, keep treading on kittens - just spend time saving the dogs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12957838) when you can.

[Ozymandias]

The notion that evil does not exist, suggests that good does not exist - does anything matter? That is a slightly ridiculous argument, as, if you can consider any one 'thing' better than any other, then you can argue reduction to a notion of good and evil; Good representing contribution to those things that are better and Evil representing contribution to those things that are worse. Also somethings can be both good and evil, they can have elements that contribute to good outputs and also elements that contribute to bad outputs. Your last sentence is just plain wrong - think vector math for that.


In your first sentence you are being a moral absolutist, in arguing that one can make a definitive statement that some things are "better" than others. It is important to recognise that any declaration of this type is just your opinion and someone else may hold a different view. Therefore there is no such thing as "evil", except for an absolutist.

As for your last sentence, you seem to misunderstand vectors.

[mood2]

It's a complicated world and there are going to be occasions where you have to choose whether to do something you normally consider Wrong in order to get a result you consider a more important Good. People tell white lies all the time, for example.

In theory I tend towards consequentialism, messy and uncomfortable as it often is. But I think when we're actually on the spot we mostly go with our gut and rationalise later.

[davidpbrown]

In your first sentence you are being a moral absolutist, in arguing that one can make a definitive statement that some things are "better" than others. It is important to recognise that any declaration of this type is just your opinion and someone else may hold a different view. Therefore there is no such thing as "evil", except for an absolutist.

As for your last sentence, you seem to misunderstand vectors.

That first sentence was a restatement of your position suggesting there is no such thing as evil. I didn't suggest everyone needs agree on what is Good and what is Evil.

The question need only relate to your perspective. Do you compromise what you consider to be Good with actions that you consider to be Bad? That is, more obscurely, are you content to compromise or do you understand fundamental notions of consistency?

I understand vectors.

[davidpbrown]

...People tell white lies all the time, for example.

Do people tell white lies all the time?.. or is that just a wives tale?? Not being explicit and proactively compensating another's stupidity, that they then mistake what was suggested, I don't think is the same as a white lie - and I see that more often.

In theory I tend towards consequentialism, messy and uncomfortable as it often is. But I think when we're actually on the spot we mostly go with our gut and rationalise later.

I can understand people being panicked into mistakes, though I think often that reaction is mistaken. I'm more interested in when they have considered what they do.

[mood2]

...People tell white lies all the time, for example.

Do people tell white lies all the time?.. or is that just a wives tale?? Not being explicit and proactively compensating another's stupidity, that they then mistake what was suggested, I don't think is the same as a white lie - and I see that more often.

In theory I tend towards consequentialism, messy and uncomfortable as it often is. But I think when we're actually on the spot we mostly go with our gut and rationalise later.

I can understand people being panicked into mistakes, though I think often that reaction is mistaken. I'm more interested in when they have considered what they do.

Maybe I'm unusual in not being averse to telling white lies then :dunno:. I regularly go along with a relative of mine with Alzheimer's who sometimes thinks her Mum is still alive, because telling this lady that her Mum was dead would cause her a lot of pointless upset. And even tho I suppose it would keep my deontological moral sheet clean, I'd feel like a shit. I'd guess a lot of people do similar all the time.

If you look at morality in terms of benefit and harm caused (rather than the more loaded concepts of Good and Evil actions), telling lies doesn't break any absolute moral imperative.

There are problems with this approach too tho, I know :)

[davidpbrown]

I really don't agree with either of those statements.

If I had Alzheimer's, I would hate for anyone to lie to me. I want to wrestle with my reality for as long as I can, without being patronized because I have a disease. Perhaps others would decide they would prefer to be lied to, I don't know.

Also, few actions annoy me more than others trying to anticipate me, so I can't agree that telling lies doesn't break any absolute moral imperative. You are responsible for your actions not other people's reactions. The notion of benefit and harm resolves to your ability to anticipate those and where you are wrong your actions could be substantially limit others.

[mood2]

If I had Alzheimer's, I would hate for anyone to lie to me. I want to wrestle with my reality for as long as I can, without being patronized because I have a disease. Perhaps others would decide they would prefer to be lied to, I don't know.

Fair point, there's no clear cut answer really. Another example - this lady has been led to believe all the services she receives are free, because she thinks she only has £8 a week pension coming in (no matter how many times she's corrected) and she would refuse any services she thought she was paying for. I suppose I prefer to think of these lies as managing or mitigating the symptoms of her illness, rather than patronising her because she's ill.


Also, few actions annoy me more than others trying to anticipate me, so I can't agree that telling lies doesn't break any absolute moral imperative. You are responsible for your actions not other people's reactions. The notion of benefit and harm resolves to your ability to anticipate those and where you are wrong your actions could be substantially limit others.

Yes that's a risk of consequentialism. But there are obviously also risks in not taking into account the likely consequences of your actions on others. It's tricky! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

[davidpbrown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

That problem is rather contrived and unrealistic. I wouldn't act unless there was a clear resolution to the problem. Real life is more usefully complex and we should perhaps credit others with as much ability as we have; those in a better position might be compromised by our impulsive, ill informed choices. Hell, even the mad philosopher might stop it, having tested us. We are not responsible for the acts of others, or resolving the consequences; it's better they resolve them for themselves. If those people have encouraged our involvement; if they have (or if they would have) asked for help, then we can act on their behalf but then everything we do is a bonus to their situation.

[Wizofoz]

Do people tell white lies all the time?.. or is that just a wives tale??

I have had to do several psych tests for various aspects of my work.

they often include questions like "Do you ever lie to your spouse".

It is meant as a test of your honesty. If you say "no", you are an obvious lier!!

[Wizofoz]

BTW, I'm late in the argument, but WRT draw Mohammad day, the point is BEING OFFENDED by a cartoon, because you're been instructed to by a repressive doctrine, is much more evil than the drawing.

[davidpbrown]

BTW, I'm late in the argument, but WRT draw Mohammad day, the point is BEING OFFENDED by a cartoon, because you're been instructed to by a repressive doctrine, is much more evil than the drawing.

Obviously so but repetition is tedious. As suggested above, it also tempts the entrenchment and encourages them to consider us ignorant, unsympathetic and potentially gives them justification for the notion that we need religion, if only to give us a better moral code for interacting with those who we disagree with.

[Wizofoz]

I do see what you mean. Intentionally pissing someone off IS probably counter productive.

There does need to be engagement of violent radicalism, and whatever form it takes will probalbly cause SOMEONE offence.

But I guess acting reasonably and having someone get unreasonably insulted is a better platform than the other way around.

[mood2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

That problem is rather contrived and unrealistic. I wouldn't act unless there was a clear resolution to the problem. Real life is more usefully complex and we should perhaps credit others with as much ability as we have; those in a better position might be compromised by our impulsive, ill informed choices. Hell, even the mad philosopher might stop it, having tested us. We are not responsible for the acts of others, or resolving the consequences; it's better they resolve them for themselves. If those people have encouraged our involvement; if they have (or if they would have) asked for help, then we can act on their behalf but then everything we do is a bonus to their situation.

As you say life is more complex, and I don't think our web of interactions can be broken down as simply as your view suggests. Practically everything we do will have consequences for others. I think we usually automatically factor that into our decision making. It's not surprising, we're a clever social species with a keen sense of empathy and theory of mind. That's the basis underlying rules like Don't Lie imo. Sticking to those rules when the effect will be contrary to the reason underlying them seems like a bad rule of thumb to me. Unless you believe they're based in something else, or in absolute objective morals.

[davidpbrown]

Sticking to those rules when the effect will be contrary to the reason underlying them seems like a bad rule of thumb to me. Unless you believe they're based in something else, or in absolute objective morals.

I don't believe in inflexible rules that proscribe how we should act. I do think there are fundamental principles that can lend themselves to our not behaving stupidly.

I understand there are times where we can, not inappropriately, anticipate others.

I just worry for the extension of that, to the point where we can't properly justify our actions, despite the same good intentions. I'm especially interested where there are systemic errors of that flavour, that is, for instance, Governments or corporate stupidity that derives from similar errors, of having anticipated what is good without proper consultation or consideration.

[Ozymandias]

I think that is the key. If we had perfect knowledge of the consequence of our actions, then the end would always justify the means. But since we don't have perfect knowledge it is always risky to do something bad now in the hope that it leads to something better later.