Does your moral code compel the capable to act against evil?

[We Are The Witches]

First of all, I'm taking the liberty to name "evil" anything you personally deem immoral & a threat to decency or to how things should be, but in may extend to other aspects such as unfairness in this world.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario, it's a bit fantastical but you can apply it similarly for realistic settings if you tweak the premises a bit: you are granted some sort of higher power, let's say you can erase (soft term) from existence evildoers that by any common-sense standards, let's pretend yours, should be either executed, or permanently in jail, but they're not.

We can go further with the scandals in the elite political spheres, where law & order may not reach what needs to be reached because of corruption. So you can easily impart what you believe is justice in a way that does not heavily impact you (i.e: you would take it by your own hands and punish wrongdoers), would your moral code require you to do this?

Keep in mind that you'd be the only "normal person" powerful enough for doing this, it's a bit like the cliché "with great power comes great responsability", or if you're into anime, Death Note's premise but by being not-retarded and actually altruistic.

Is it your duty to correct this (perceived) disgrace of this world by your hands if you can?

In a similar manner, and a bit tangential but in regards to simple unfairness, if you were disgustingly rich enough, would you be compelled to donate to poor people (not methheads), or to research that would help the less fortunate? This has nothing to do with you feeling better, but as a duty for the capable, in this case you as a rich person by donating to those who are in need, or as the powerful by mending what corrupted or negligent justice has not.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

No. My framework does not treat capacity as the source of duty.
A duty arises from a prior violation, contract, or property-bound obligation. Being able to punish evil or help the needy may give you an option, but it does not by itself create an obligation.

What would ground such an obligation in your view? What turns "you can improve this" into "you must"?

 

[Ibanez RG 350EX]

This has nothing to do with you feeling better, but as a duty for the capable, in this case you as a rich person by donating to those who are in need, or as the powerful by mending what corrupted or negligent justice has not.

This is precisely the kind of morality that creates totalitarian Bill Gates types, who by virtue of being ultra-wealthy thinks it's his duty and right to control the behavior of everyone on the planet.

 

[Sperghetti]

This is precisely the kind of morality that creates totalitarian Bill Gates types, who by virtue of being ultra-wealthy thinks it's his duty and right to control the behavior of everyone on the planet.

I would also like to invoke the classic C.S. Lewis quote about how "It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies."

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

It's not that the world doesn't have a lot of animals wearing human hides that deserve death, but the main issue is that someone trying to fix things can fuck them more if they don't know the ramifications, like killing a dictator just creates a worse civil war. Nevermind cases like Africa that actively stagnate due to being cared for by the western world for decades.

Also the general idea that you are required to do something because you can is ridiculous.

 

[Chongqing]

I would hesitantly say yes, with the caveat that it is everyone's duty to fight the nearest enemy, and this usually manifests as forces for evil within themselves. So I would say everyone should ascribe to be a better person and I would say this is a big part of what you're talking about.

One time my boss treated me very unfairly at work and soiled my reputation to some extent.

Years later, I was thriving in another job and my new boss asked me if I knew anyone who was looking for work who could do the skills that we needed.

My old boss was looking for work at the time and she had those skills.

Through a smile, I told my new boss no, I don't know anyone like that.

I think people should do things like that. But that is the extent of what I would advocate for. Anything beyond this, I feel like we're getting into the territory of saying people should be killing politicians and doing evil things themselves.

 

[Pomniman]

disgustingly rich

My moral code compels me to call you a filthy vantablack as gutter oil shit gorilla nigger.

 

[We Are The Witches]

My moral code compels me to call you a filthy vantablack as gutter oil shit gorilla nigger.

It is a valid expression in english to use that averb for such a thing, and also can be accurate.

I think people should do things like that. But that is the extent of what I would advocate for. Anything beyond this, I feel like we're getting into the territory of saying people should be killing politicians and doing evil things themselves.

I see, that's fair, although in my fantasy scenario/hypothetical it could be more like a person that could impart such justice for the most serious offenders, if the legal system fails and they're unpunished.

Also the general idea that you are required to do something because you can is ridiculous.

Yes, that is a ridiculous premise, but in here it would be more like "I somehow have acquired this power or resources that no one else has, that I feel my duty would be to mend something that's atrocious because no one else can, or for the ones that could, are not willing due to corruption or negligence (assuming the individual in the hypothetical has common-sense standards)".

This is precisely the kind of morality that creates totalitarian Bill Gates types, who by virtue of being ultra-wealthy thinks it's his duty and right to control the behavior of everyone on the planet.

Yes, if you start to add "obligations" that expand beyond the scope of the original premise (such as control others in such a way), but I understand that it's a slippery-slope.

What would ground such an obligation in your view? What turns "you can improve this" into "you must"?

I was just asking, because I want to know what people in here think.

Assuming I agreed to have such duty, I guess it could be the idea that because in this hypothetical I have received power no normal person has, it would be selfish (and so to an extent immoral, under this subjective code) to not use these capabilities for good (in theory).

Like an analogy, if you want to really stretch the exmaple, dismissing someone that cries for help. The analogy being someone crying for help → normal people who are either exploited by "elites" (substitute that word for whichever you think fits best), or simply not held to the same standards, meaning under an extremely corrupt system. And you, while capable of rebalancing that crooked scale, you don't.

This could be a perspective, I am not saying it's the only one.

 

[Chongqing]

I see, that's fair, although in my fantasy scenario/hypothetical it could be more like a person that could impart such justice for the most serious offenders, if the legal system fails and they're unpunished.

This is a seductive point of view, but the person who is doing the punishing often becomes the moral failing that they wish to punish.

Look at anti-ICE protestors. They don't like ICE because they stereotype, demand to see ID, and hold people inprisoned without the right to do so in their opinion.

How does that manifest? They stop random people based on stereotypes if they look like ICE, they demand ID, and then they don't let them leave.

This how it goes every time.

 

[Nick Wilde]

If you are compelled to act against one evil, then you must be compelled to act against all evils, or else how would you pick which evil you must act against? There are simply too many evils for acting against all of them to ever conceivably be possible, and if one were to try it would only lead to one's own ruination.

Some dipshit philosophy guy I don't remember the name of made basically this argument about donating to charity. Maybe you heard the same interview I did and it inspired you to make the thread.

But it does fall apart pretty easily once you think about it. I can spare 2 bucks a month to donate to some third world shithole famine, I can probably spare 2 bucks a month for the blind dogs too, but if I donated 2 bucks a month to every single good cause I'd be broke pretty fast. The fallacious assumption the argument rests on is that there is one easily defined most worthy cause for you to prioritise. Even if you are filthy rich, this still holds true; your capacity to donate is higher but you still can't possibly throw money at everything in the world that needs money thrown at it.

Therefore, no, just from a pragmatic angle, it's silly. To go further, this is why the solutions to social ills can never be adequately addressed by charity alone, the solutions must be sYsTeMiC

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

I have a duty to report people committing crimes, and if necessary, get involved personally to prevent a crime from happening or catch a suspect. The actual sentencing and punishments are the responsibility of the state and the courts.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I was just asking, because I want to know what people in here think.

Assuming I agreed to have such duty, I guess it could be the idea that because in this hypothetical I have received power no normal person has, it would be selfish (and so to an extent immoral, under this subjective code) to not use these capabilities for good (in theory).

Like an analogy, if you want to really stretch the exmaple, dismissing someone that cries for help. The analogy being someone crying for help → normal people who are either exploited by "elites" (substitute that word for whichever you think fits best), or simply not held to the same standards, meaning under an extremely corrupt system. And you, while capable of rebalancing that crooked scale, you don't.

This could be a perspective, I am not saying it's the only one.

I understand where you're going, but that's where the issue still is
Like, someone crying for help works because it's a direct situation. There's a clearly identifiable person in distress and your action would be immediately connected to that specific situation. It is a response to an ongoing conflict/harm right in front of you, not based on some broad judgment about who deserves what.
The hypothetical of yours, however, are different in kind. The situations you posited rely on one person deciding, under their own standards, who qualifies as a "serious offender" in a corrupt system, and then acting on that judgment without constraint. Even with the added limits you mentioned, the step that would turn it into a duty isn't specified.
The "no one else can" condition narrows the scope, but it doesn't explain why that would generate an obligation.

In other words, I'm still wondering: what is it about being uniquely capable that would make intervention required?

 

[We Are The Witches]

This how it goes every time.

You're right, that is one problem, just like with the example someone gave for Bill Gates above.

But that could be a failure of the execution of the initial idea, and not the idea itself. Meaning, one could set hard boundaries on how to act, where you won't step into or beyond the blurred moral line.

So for example, you hear all those vile criminals getting out of jail or not being properly punished, and crooked or incompetent judges allowing it, well, the individual in the hypothetical could set the boundaries to only act against such a blatant display of injustice. Because no one is fixing it, and there is no good way to fix it by normal means when the system is rotten.

That is just one example, you could imagine another one where challenging the overwhelming injustice is even more unattainable by normal means. If the individual actually strays from the path of trying to fix it, and in the process involves themself in collateral immoral actions (such as what those anti-ICE people are doing), then they would stop and not act.

Keep in mind that in theory this would be for very challenging forms of corruption to solve, not for things that have a realistic avenue. Sounds a bit like the Luigi Mangione guy, but I don't know enough about USA healthcare, and I'm keeping my topic to the highest caliber of enabled corruption/criminals that are a direct cause.

But it does fall apart pretty easily once you think about it. I can spare 2 bucks a month to donate to some third world shithole famine, I can probably spare 2 bucks a month for the blind dogs too, but if I donated 2 bucks a month to every single good cause I'd be broke pretty fast.

Maybe in that case it doesn't need to be black or white, and I understand that the line would be arbitrary. But you could set an amount (if you're rich for example) that you dedicate to charities (that are legit).

Not all or nothing, just X amount, and how you decide on who to help could be done by randomness or according to what you believe is most urgent (again, to legit groups). So you wouldn't go over your budget, just your grain of sand in the mountain.

Also, this would be because of one's moral code, not imposed, I am not talking about someone demanding others to pay, but you deciding yourself, specially if you know your financial troubles are probably going to be non-existent. Like a multi-millionaire deciding to set something to a charity.

Although this thing about money was just tangential, my initial problem was a bit more unrealistic in its setting, and more so dedicated to blatant criminals.

The actual sentencing and punishments are the responsibility of the state and the courts.

You're right, it's how it should be, but the problem comes when corruption plagues the system. That corruption is part of the justice system if it's allowed by its methods of challenging. Meaning, if it allows some influential folks not being looked into for serious offenses, and is clearly biased & allows double standards, realistically, then something isn't working right.

In other words, I'm still wondering: what is it about being uniquely capable that would make intervention required?

Well, under my proposed reason, and under this subjective moral code, because (like in the analogy) they are turning a blind eye to something they and only they can realistically solve, specially if the problem is of the highest caliber of essentially protected criminals.

So in a sense, it would be like a feel of betrayal to decency & justice (in their eyes) if they decide not to act when they are not only very capable, but also the only ones that can. So again like I said, a selfish course of action, and this code would deem this immoral because they decide to be neutral or apathetic, to not take action, when they can solve the issue. And in order to not be immoral, they'd be required (by their own ideals) to use their abilities against the problem.

The serious offender could be someone that has done heinous crimes by all available evidence (such as the example I gave above of criminals getting away with almost nothing, and judges allowing it), but now imagine the same but for the high spheres, as another example, where they're practically untouchable.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

You're right, it's how it should be, but the problem comes when corruption plagues the system. That corruption is part of the justice system if it's allowed by its methods of challenging. Meaning, if it allows some influential folks not being looked into for serious offenses, and is clearly biased & allows double standards, realistically, then something isn't working right.

If corruption is at that level the system needs to be torn down and rebuilt, not strung along by vigilantism filling in the gaps where the law fails.

 

[Chongqing]

So for example, you hear all those vile criminals getting out of jail or not being properly punished, and crooked or incompetent judges allowing it, well, the individual in the hypothetical could set the boundaries to only act against such a blatant display of injustice. Because no one is fixing it, and there is no good way to fix it by normal means when the system is rotten.

I hear what you're saying, but I would reject the notion that the system is rotten (in America).

For all the problems we have here, like criminals getting out of jail and so on, it is very rare that anyone will contact their elected representatives on the state or federal level.

Many people seem to think the only way to participate in a republic is through voting. In reality, we all need to participate by contacting our representatives.

I'm the only person I know in person who has ever done it. But anyone can do it. Even someone working here temporarily.

I think most people who commit ideaological violence because they think they're right have mostly never written a representative before.

 

[Honka Honka Burning Love]

Nope, I will decide on an individual basis if someone deserves my help.

If some faggot is gonna bend over and take it up the ass from a Bully without even attempting to stand up for themselves why should I stick my neck out?

 

[Butterschmalz]

if you were disgustingly rich enough, would you be compelled to donate to poor people (not methheads), or to research that would help the less fortunate?

Compelled to donate? LMAO. They are "less fortunate" because of you.

 

[Staticness]

No. If I was able to enforce my morality on the whole world, it would end in a genocide that would have my name cursed forever because the inferior cultures are wholly unfit for real society and would drop like flies.

Divine retribution is one thing, but I am human and therefore flawed. I cannot sit in judgement over good and evil without becoming a bloodthirsty tyrant.