User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 143

  1. #111
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Night, it's a shame you don't post more on TypeC. Good post.

  2. #112
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Okay, I'm going to try not to contaminate this discussion too much, but I had to reply to this, because it's an excellent point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    When being alive does not merit respect, then why should he respect the existence of others?
    Most people respect the existence of others, because they wish to have their own existence respected by others in turn. They believe that by doing so, they make it likely that others will respect their existence because they assume that others feel the same way and are willing to reciprocate.

    If he didn't wish to have his own existence respected by others, then his actions make sense. He did what he had to do because of what he believed in (kill those people), and then we did what we had to do because of what we believed in (imprison him). That's all. Society and the unabomber just had a difference of opinion on morality that wasn't easily reconciled, and one of them had to yield. Since society was stronger, it was he who had to yield. So in the end, it doesn't matter if what we did was right (if there is such a thing as "right"), it was what our moral code dictated, because it was necessary to protect people, and we had the power to enforce it, so we did.

    His biggest mistake, was simply acting alone. Had he recruited a large enough group of followers willing to challenge society for his ideals (and possibly blow up more buildings), we would have been forced to respect him whether we wanted to or not. He might have even managed to achieve whatever he set out to achieve, rather than just "send a message." One man has little power, but a group is very powerful.

    Morality, in a given situation, is ultimately decided based on maintaining power, order, and politics, though we would all like to believe that it's based on something else.

  3. #113
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    My response was an ethical consideration, not a legal one. Something can be legal but unethical.
    My example was an example.

  4. #114
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    My example was an example.
    Example OF....?

  5. #115
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Inconsistency.

  6. #116
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    When being alive does not merit respect, then why should he respect the existence of others?
    On and on we go around the circle. Ultimately, it came down to one thing, as Athenian said - Kaczynski wanted something done, he didn't have the power to enact it, and instead of trying to persuade people, he attempted to impose it through fear.

    It's an issue of sovereignty. We have collective sovereignty. Through that, we as a whole grant individuals certain rights. We also bar individuals from certain actions. That's what I think Night was getting at: humans as individuals (tomato) vs humans as a collective (ketchup).

    And just as Athenian also said, the reason for this is that if you don't play nice, the rest of us are going to beat you up. Like it or not, that's reality.

  7. #117
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    On and on we go around the circle. Ultimately, it came down to one thing, as Athenian said - Kaczynski wanted something done, he didn't have the power to enact it, and instead of trying to persuade people, he attempted to impose it through fear.

    It's an issue of sovereignty. We have collective sovereignty. Through that, we as a whole grant individuals certain rights. We also bar individuals from certain actions. That's what I think Night was getting at: humans as individuals (tomato) vs humans as a collective (ketchup).

    And just as Athenian also said, the reason for this is that if you don't play nice, the rest of us are going to beat you up. Like it or not, that's reality.
    I didn't know that. Tell me more!

  8. #118
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    I didn't know that. Tell me more!
    Wait a minute...

    I think Nicodemus actually won this argument, if I'm reading this correctly.


    His intention wasn't to show that the Unabomber was justified, but simply to show that our choice of how to deal with him did not necessarily come from a higher morality than his. Both he and society ultimately acted based on a desire to establish power over others. Thus, in a sense, we behaved very much like sociopaths on the collective scale, while he behaved like one as an individual, which is what was repugnant to us. Nicodemus wanted us to acknowledge a certain degree of hypocrisy, and we've done that.

  9. #119
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    If a person kidnaps and imprisons another human being against their will, is it hypocritical to give them a prison sentence? If so, what should the alternate consequence for their actions be (if any)?

  10. #120
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    If a person kidnaps and imprisons another human being against their will, is it hypocritical to give them a prison sentence? If so, what should the alternate consequence for their actions be (if any)?
    That's just it. Hypocrisy is natural and necessary. The assumption that there's something wrong with it, or that there is such a thing as inherent wrong, would be flawed. It's all a matter of perspective.

    Yes, it may be hypocritical, but that doesn't make it wrong. It just means that it's not necessarily perfectly "right," either. It's just how we respond.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] How do I become more like an NT?
    By I Never Find Peace in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-12-2011, 03:47 PM
  2. [ISFJ] How to tell if an ISFJ likes you
    By DJAchtundvierzig in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-06-2010, 10:39 AM
  3. [E8] How to argue with an 8w7
    By yenom in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 03-17-2010, 04:14 PM
  4. [NT] How to mess with an NT's head
    By Amargith in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 256
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 11:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO