I don't find this "soul-crushingly depressing", actually. Sins can't be bribed. When a human sins, the record will be there in God's record for eternity until they redeem them in hell. Call me cruel or whatever, but I think this man deserve the judgement.
makkun said: I don't find this "soul-crushingly depressing", actually. Sins can't be bribed. When a human sins, the record will be there in God's record for eternity until they redeem them in hell. Call me cruel or whatever, but I think this man deserve the judgement.
Read Shikieiki's dialogue in PoFV. Jesus Christ himself would be painted black guilty in a day-lasting tirade. She loves preaching. She preaches the living fuck out of anyone and everyone.
Mr.Obake said: You sure did not read the whole page before this one and before.
Or not understand them at all.
I'm pretty sure you actually wanted to say:
"My opinion on what should be considered soul-crushingly depressing differs from yours (and I think mine is correct), therefore I assume you haven't read / understood the story at all ("understood" the same - correct - way I did, of course). Also, my sentimentality influences my concept of justice (to the point I feel sad about Shikieiki's correct judgement just because children are involved) and logical thinking (I'm sad despite knowing the children weren't harmed at all, not knowing that their gift had, in fact, no effect)."
Heparine said: I'm pretty sure you actually wanted to say:
"My opinion on what should be considered soul-crushingly depressing differs from yours (and I think mine is correct), therefore I assume you haven't read / understood the story at all ("understood" the same - correct - way I did, of course). Also, my sentimentality influences my concept of justice (to the point I feel sad about Shikieiki's correct judgement just because children are involved) and logical thinking (I'm sad despite knowing the children weren't harmed at all, not knowing that their gift had, in fact, no effect)."
I lol'ed. On serious note, no, you are totally on the wrong thinking again.
It's about a judge convicting true and objective yet fair judgment from ALL parties, not strictly from the guilty part only. You won't understand this concept unless you have experienced it in your real life.
Stop thinking everything is about opinion this and opinion that like an internet board.
Mr.Obake said: I lol'ed. On serious note, no, you are totally on the wrong thinking again.
It's about a judge convicting true and objective yet fair judgment from ALL parties, not strictly from the guilty part only. You won't understand this concept unless you have experienced it in your real life.
Stop thinking everything is about opinion this and opinion that like an internet board.
Soo... his father half will reside in heaven while his murderer part will reside in hell and his rapist part in a prison full of gay black guys? That's certainly interesting, but rather schizophrenic.
When I saw this, I think the idea is that things aren't black and white but Shiki is forced to think that way. While the guy, being a rapist, murderer, and a criminal, should be completely full of sin, he was a good father, or at least, his children loved him like he was a good father.
This means that Shiki is more sympathetic to his children not because children are unable to sin, but because this is their father and even if he was a murderer, they still love him and wish him the best. I'm not sure if she literally means a child, or the referring to all children to all their parents. Also the naivety of the gift might affect her, rather than offering the judge of your father's soul great tribute, they offer something mundane, but the idea is that its all they have, or all they can think of giving. We don't see the man himself, but he appears to be rather devout unless that is how all people have to stand before the Yamaxanadu.
Also important, at least to me it was, is that it mentioned that he was doing good things in the afterlife and seemed penitent. The twist is that with something like Black and White, there is no gray, so unless you are completely redeemed, you go to hell, regardless of all the work and belief you have in redemption. The problem being that an eternity in hell is punishment for a mortal lifetime, or even a single mortal act, of sin. But the concept of the great sins is that they are actions that completely destroy the moral character, which I personally don't think is the case here.
I guess the moral is not to sin because of the pain your children will be put through because regardless of what you do, there is that love and heartbreak.
I don't see why this is in Told you not to that Pool, other than in a very loose sense.
Heparine has an interesting idea, but the game of souls is all or nothing.
The thing is, it ultimately depends on what belief you consider to be "true". Even if a person truly wants to believe and work his entire life towards redemption, if the situation doesn't allow it, should he still be punished? Its moral absolutism and its not practical for judgmental purposes.
If a kid steals money, but only to buy food, should he go to hell? If a man gets a job as a security guard, and is forced to shoot and kill a madman with a bomb, should he go to hell?
Condemning people to hell because they were born into a impoverished family or saved people's lives is sadistic to say the least. Maybe the game of souls is all or nothing, as Anelaid calls it, we don't know. But if it is God, or whatever pantheon of deities you believe in, is a heartless, merciless monster.
Regardless of what it is, Shiki is bound by the rules of all or nothing, I don't know enough about here other than the Yama was a Chinese divine judge, I'm unsure of any other details.
However, almost every religion and code of ethics has certain actions that cannot be defended or right under any circumstance, minus the hypothetical, "Kill/rape this person, or I will kill/rape ten more" but even that is the subject of spirited debate.
Christianity, at least in the days of the Crusade, still required Soldiers to repent for all the people they've killed in the name of King and Country. The idea being that they are killing in the name of the King, not God, but even the latter case a death is a still a death. It changed its tune later on, but some religions separate killing as part of duty to other kinds. Even in the example above, its not a moral question, it his duty as a security guard, or a police officer, to protect citizens, or those he is assigned to protect, from harm using the proper amount of force. If he is forced to shoot, its out of his hands.
The idea of the afterlife here I imagine is similar to Purgatory, where someone is giving a final chance, the question I have is whether or not he really had a chance.
I don't believe in absolutism, but Shiki is forced too. Whether or not she is personally bothered by it according to this story, I don't know, but canon-wise she tries to help the different play characters by telling them their faults in life. I thought that she did the "you will go to hell" as part of a tactic to scare them.
The idea in more puritanical views of God, he is a monster, but only to sinners and the damned. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" outright states that God does not love all people, and will come to hate most, but don't forget the entire purpose of the movement that sermon began was scare-mongering and examining how they did it, they certainly knew how to play off psychological and theological fears and uncertainties. Perhaps Shiki hopes for the same effect, by punishing one man severely, others will wish not to punished and will act better.
Anelaid said: The idea in more puritanical views of God, he is a monster, but only to sinners and the damned. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" outright states that God does not love all people, and will come to hate most, but don't forget the entire purpose of the movement that sermon began was scare-mongering and examining how they did it, they certainly knew how to play off psychological and theological fears and uncertainties. Perhaps Shiki hopes for the same effect, by punishing one man severely, others will wish not to punished and will act better.
Ok now, you're just reaching. The Puritanical movement was in large part to blatant the political power grab over the English Reformation. If you're going to cite political movements as religious dogma, this is going to go anywhere.
And I'm pretty damned sure Shikieiki isn't Christian.
I never said she was a Christian. And I never heard of the Puritan movement ever being a power-grab movement, although it was based on dissatisfaction with the church on many levels.
OK, what's up with Danbooru having religious conversations all of a sudden? I thought it was a fluke with that Yukari on the cross thing...
It's really important, though, to note that in the eastern traditions of the cosmos that Shiki is a Judge of the Dead for, there are more than just "Heaven" and "Hell" as options. You can reincarnate as a human if you're fairly good. You can reincarnate as a celestial if you are very good. You can reincarnate as an animal and/or youkai if you are a little bad. The netherworld or the hells are for the really bad...
And even then, there's more than a few hells or netherworlds to get sent to, and on top of that, you can in some cases literally walk out of places like the Netherworld (say hi to Yuyuko for me!) or hells like the Hell of Blazing Fires (Orin) or the makai that Shinki governs, which wasn't exactly a fire-and-brimstone hell, either. (Plus, if you are reincarnated as a human, you can be reincarnated as a wealthy person with few worries in life or an impovrished and ill child who will suffer with a terrible disease for the whole of your fairly short life...) Basically, Shiki could tweak things a little in one direction or another without making a major change in her ruling based upon her own personal judgement of the case that wouldn't be an all-or-nothing judgement the way you seem to claim, in a similar manner to how a real-life judge often setences criminals based upon a window of, for example, 12 to 16 months that would be the recommended sentence for a certain class of crime, and give lesser or greater sentences based upon their personal judgement of the guilty.
Before calling Shiki cruel for sending the guy to Hell (well, A hell, whichever one he went to), though, it's worth keeping in mind that we only saw this guy through the eyes of his children. If the rape victim or the murder victim's children had talked to Shiki, what would they have said about this guy? You can't get emotionally attached to just one side of the story, which is exactly what Shiki was struggling with, because she probably had the ability to look at and KNOW what this guy had done, and could see for herself how much suffering had been inflicted by the guy she was judging.
Also, to respond to the "Jesus would be painted black" comment, it was said in the description of Shiki by ZUN that Shiki just has the sort of personality where she worries for people (or their souls, as it were), and shows it by relentless nagging, although she really means well. In the case of people like Reimu, it's obvious what she is talking about. However, I think that if you look at the conversations that Reisen has with Shiki, for example, where she says that Reisen should show more regret for abandoning her friends on the moon, that Shiki doesn't really think that Reisen is a bad person, but that she should be more mindful and humble. Youmu is the same, all Shiki says is that she should respect the boundaries of the Netherworld and Gensokyou/the world of the living more (because leaving the gates to the netherworld open and letting the damned out kind of defeats the purpose of the system). She just uses threatening language to try to "scare 'em straight".
As for "punishing harshly to scare others", that would be completely useless if you didn't advertise how that person went to Hell. Medieval justice involved very public, bloody, painful executions for just this reason - to scare people away from crime... but instead, it just made for a spectacle where people would make charms out of handkerchiefs dipped in the blood of the condemned. Excessively harsh punishments as a deterrant have been used since the dawn of civilization, and there has basically never been evidence that they ever worked, and there is a case to be made that a public acceptance of violence in retribution for being wronged may even increase violence in the society as a whole.
With that said, it's obviously not a bad thing to empathize with the children in this story, it's empathy for others, even in the abstract that specifically keeps us from doing this kind of harm to others, so it can still certainly be "depressing", but it need not be for pity for the damned, but pity that the events took place that would lead to him being damned.
There is, finally, also the idea that Shiki is ultimately responsible for trying to do her best to reform that man, and a life in a worse place where he regrets his crimes is really the only tool she has for intervening. Otherwise, the "merciful" path of letting everyone into the higher planes, regardless of their actions, makes the whole system break down. Like an intervention with a alcoholic, sometimes a rude awakening is called for. Of course, in reincarnation hell, you only go there temporarily, and are eventually reborn a better person.
MMaestro said: Condemning people to hell because they were born into a impoverished family or saved people's lives is sadistic to say the least. Maybe the game of souls is all or nothing, as Anelaid calls it, we don't know. But if it is God, or whatever pantheon of deities you believe in, is a heartless, merciless monster.
I say again: Play PoFV. Read all Shikieiki's dialogues. She is the "absolute" form of justice, the "lawful neutral". There can be no subjectivity or sympathy in her work, that's even the whole point of this story - she's sorry for the kids, but can't let that interfere with her job as the Enma. The sweets still remain, though, and remind her of the conflict. That's where Komachi comes in and eats the sweets; takes the burden off Eiki's shoulders.
Let's say, the kid you talked about - he steals some food because he's hungry. If he didn't do any good deeds to equilibrate the sin of theft, he will go to hell regardless of his social position. Don't confuse absolute justice with socialism. The fact the kid is hungry doesn't give him the right to steal, let's say, a bread - a bread the baker put his effort and money into. Yes, it's morally excusable, but in the face of absolute, posthumous justice Shikieiki represents, he *will* be judged for this. If his good deeds prevail, he may be redeemed, but if he lives his life meaninglessly, there won't be enough good to compensate even for the little sins and he *will* go to hell.
For the security guy shooting the bomb attacker - he already saved more lives by stopping him. The sin of manslaughter persists, but it's overbalanced by saving several other lives.
Heh, now you're talking about two conflicting views on morality.
On the one hand, there is a sort of black-and-white view of morality (Deontology, in some ways, it's the "Lawful Good" view of morality), which says that certain actions are wrong, period. Killing someone, for example, is wrong. Always. Even if they are serial killers, and killing them is the only way to stop them. Killing is just plain always wrong. (See this "Three Minute Philsophy" clip on Kant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw&feature=channel )
On the other hand, there is the view (Consequentialism, "Chaotic Good" view,) that morality is based upon the consequences of the actions, not a categorical opposition to certain types of actions. This is often derided as "the ends justify the means" by those opposed to it, but it also means that you have to take into account all the consequences. The right action is the action that either benefits the most people, or at least mitigates harm as much as posible.
People tend to fall in a spectrum between these two opposing sides, only very rarely taking one extreme (and those that do are often heavily philosophical and spend a good deal of time thinking about such things), but it is often a point of disconnect because people only rarely talk about these opposing philosophies.
Take, for example, the "trolly problem", where a trolly is running unstoppably down a train track, and will kill ten people who are in the station, however, you, at the switch, can instead change the tracks to send the trolly down a different track where only one person who is doing maintainance on that other track will be in the way and will be killed by the trolly. Deontilogically, you should do nothing, because you are not responsible for the trolly's killing people, only your own decision, and it would be immoral to kill someone, even to save ten others. You are only responsible for the person that you, directly, kill.
Consequentially, however, taking the action that would kill one person to save ten others is the ONLY moral action to take. This is because by your INaction, you are actually deciding to make ten people die just so that you don't have to take action to save those ten people, even if it means taking the action that would directly result in the death of another person. You are morally responsible for whatever happens to those eleven people simply by virtue of having the power to change the outcome, and must therefore always be searching for the best outcome for everyone in every situation you have any control over.
Obviously, this is a place where a massive amount of misunderstanding about morality can take place because it's based entirely upon what moral viewpoint you start out from.
Now, Heparine, I go back to why I say you seem to be confused, here... If someone steals food from a reasonably well-off merchant who is not significantly harmed from the theft in order to mitigate the extreme harm caused by starving to death (consider if this is to feed a family member instead of "selfishly" only to feed oneself, if you must), but you declare that immoral, simply because "stealing is always wrong", then you are taking a strong Deontological stance. When you then, in the next paragraph, state that a security guard shooting a terrorist is "overbalanced by saving several other lives", then you're taking a nuanced Consequentialist stance.
You're making a statement that Shiki is being "absolute", but you're not really making a consistant definition of what "absolute" is, here.
Still, Shiki was being harsh in PoFV to try to make the people she talked to reflect more upon their own actions, not simply condemning people because she's just a judgemental bitch.
Incidentally, Jeebus, what a tl;dr mess this is making.
I'm kinda glad that Shikieiki made the right choice of sending him to hell for his crimes. Even if they are kids if she had did what they ask she wouldn't be fit to be an Enma.
The man should look on the bright side; the fact that his kids care enough to try to bribe the Enma and try to get him to heaven dispite the fact that hes a sinner. Even if he is to go to hell at least he should be at ease knowing that he had such a loving and caring family.
NWSiaCB said: Now, Heparine, I go back to why I say you seem to be confused, here... If someone steals food from a reasonably well-off merchant who is not significantly harmed from the theft in order to mitigate the extreme harm caused by starving to death (consider if this is to feed a family member instead of "selfishly" only to feed oneself, if you must), but you declare that immoral, simply because "stealing is always wrong", then you are taking a strong Deontological stance. When you then, in the next paragraph, state that a security guard shooting a terrorist is "overbalanced by saving several other lives", then you're taking a nuanced Consequentialist stance.
Wait, wait... it isn't that simple. I can identify with the "certain actions are wrong, period" concept, but I'm not necessarily a deontologist just because of that. As I said, the sin (slaughter, theft) persists, but if the *consequences* overweight it, the final result is positive. That means, if the kid survives on stolen food just to live a good life, the sin of theft won't disappear, but the good in his future life will make it just a "minor episode in the past". Same thing as with the security worker (or the person in the trolly). That's consequentialism... though not the pure kind. As for "a reasonably well-off merchant who is not significantly harmed from the theft" - this is not really relevant, not even under a consequentialist point of view. You accidentally mixed social apologism in there... which doesn't have anything to do with any form of justice we are talking about here. What seems like "being confused" to you is probably just a hybrid of many concepts of justice. It's not rigid, you can't point out, identify and demarcate every aspect of it, but it also isn't confused and doesn't contradict itself.
And about me being confused, English isn't my native language so I'm having a hard time making my point in any kind of sophisticated discussion. But it's definitely fun (though a bit tl;dr), and also rather intensive practice.
Heparine said: I can identify with the "certain actions are wrong, period" concept, but I'm not necessarily a deontologist just because of that.
What we are talking about is not what you might believe, but what moral philosophy Shiki is using.
You claimed that Shiki follows an "absolutist" moral structure, and then start to identify it, apparently, with deontology.
Then, in the next example, you talk about something that is not absolutist, but very nuanced, that killling someone is acceptable because of the consequences of not taking that action - a consequentialist view. The absolutist deontological view is that killing is wrong, and it is not right for you to kill the terrorist, even if the consequences are letting others die (because consequences do not matter, only the actions do), because the terrorist is in charge of his own moral framework, and the deaths of others are his moral responsibility alone.
Therefore, if you talk about the "positive benefits" of the consequences of stopping a terrorist from killing people, you are taking a non-absolutist view.
This doesn't mean that I am labeling you as one thing or another, but it does mean that the moral structure you are applying is not as "absolute" (or, if it is absolute, it is not as lacking in nuances) as you at first claim. Many theories and philosophies need nuance, after all, but you have to make the allowances that allow the contradictions to be accounted for.
Even in non absolutist philosophies, there are certain "Forbidden" or absolutely wrong actions.
Deontology also has to deal with duty. It is in the duty of the soldier to kill for the sake of his country and what his country wants to do, so it is moral responsibility to kill the terrorist not only to stop harm to other people, but also because the intent is examined. If you kill someone with the INTENT to prevent that someone from killing others, that is it. Even a absolutist deontology view will examine the intent, and duty throws a crowbar in the Panzer's sprocket. Also, it is not a matter of personal responsibility, each person is not their own separate spear of morality, an idea closer to rational egoism, but interconnected. I think the problem with any absolutist philosophy is that its extremely limited in its perception of the world and becomes more and more broken over time.
Anyway, of course several non-absolutist philosophies will have some completely forbidden actions, but that really doesn't matter to the argument at hand - the argument at hand regards what is or isn't an absolute philosophy. You can mix and match the middle areas of the spectrum as much as you like, but we are defining the absolute ends of the spectrum, here.
At least to Kant, the key principle of absolute deontolgy and the Categorical Imparitive was that the consequences of one's actions are completely irrelevant for judging their morality. Further, that all actions have to have Universality, that it is OK if ANYONE took the same actions that you took at any time. (Which means it doesn't matter if someone is a security guard or a soldier or a civilian. There is no special status that makes it more OK for one person to kill compared to another.)
This does make sense in certain situations: Consider if you drove home drunk after a night of heavy drinking. You vomitted in your bushes, and slept on the floor, but generally were fine. Someone else who decided to get equally as drunk as you and then took the action of driving home while drunk ran someone over and killed a pedestrian. Since the actual consequences of your decisions don't matter, we either have to say that driving drunk is always wrong or never wrong, and if you want to say that it is wrong, then your actions, being the person who hurt nobody but maybe your liver by drinking and driving are exactly morally equivalent to the person who actually killed someone.
By extension, under absolute deontological rules, and only under deontological rules, a security guard who kills a terrorist just before he can detonate a bomb that kills hundreds of people is morally equivalent to a random civilian who shoots and kills someone they think is a terrorist in a non-life-threatening situation. Whether or not they are, and whether or not you actually save lives is utterly irrelevant to the morality of the action, because morality is contained solely in the action itself.
Hence, even if we are talking about the "intent of good will" in killing a terrorist, that means that the exact same moral standard must be applied to, say, a man who shoots someone who looks like an arab just because he thinks all arabs are terrorists, and that therefore, he's saving people's lives by killing that "terrorist".
The intent has to be justified of course. That is a given for any philosophy. But the security guard is FORCED as you say to fire, its not a matter of will, the situation dictates that he is placed in a situation where he will and must pull the trigger and kill that terrorist.
Deontological rules dictate that since drunk driving is done with absolute disregard for safety of others, you cannot universalize that all people drunk drive.
Absolutism is greatly flawed and even Shiki seems uncomfortable with it. Her decision to accept the bribe proves shes not quite so absolute in her principles.
Anelaid said: The intent has to be justified of course. That is a given for any philosophy.
Actually, no it doesn't. Especially consequentialist systems might not care, the outcomes are what matter.
Hypothetically, if you were a scientist who, say, cured cancer or AIDS or something, but only did it because you wanted to be rich and famous and prove you could, you're still the guy that cured freakin' cancer, and saved millions of lives and prevented massive amounts of suffering. Regardless of intent, saving lives and preventing huge amounts of suffering is a moral act.
But the security guard is FORCED as you say to fire, its not a matter of will, the situation dictates that he is placed in a situation where he will and must pull the trigger and kill that terrorist.
No he isn't. There's nothing that says the security guard, upon seeing a guy with a bomb, doesn't go, "Oh crap! A guy with a bomb! I'm not paid enough for this crap, RUN AWAY!"
There's nothing in the original situation that FORCES the security guard to shoot, it's completely his own choice, and as such the morality of the decision is on him - and if it wasn't his choice for some bizzare reason, and he was forced, then it makes the entire situation completely moot as a philosohpical example, because otherwise you'd be assigning moral responsibility on someone who was incapable of making any decision in the first place.
Deontological rules dictate that since drunk driving is done with absolute disregard for safety of others, you cannot universalize that all people drunk drive.
Umm, I don't know if you're reading a different definition of "universalization" than I am, but under the one I'm operating under, yes you can. In fact, that's fairly easy to do. You just have to ask "would it be alright if everyone thought it was alright to drive drunk, and greatly increased the risk they posed to other people by doing so?" If you think it's immoral to take actions that increase the risk to other people of dying in random car crashes, then it's equally immoral whether they actually hurt someone or not, because their decision is the same, either way.
Or to put it another way, if you tossed a rock off the top of a tall building without looking, but luckily, managed to miss anyone, you are as morally culpable if you actually had hit someone.
This falls under the category of "Moral Luck", really.
Absolutism is greatly flawed and even Shiki seems uncomfortable with it. Her decision to accept the bribe proves shes not quite so absolute in her principles.
Actually, she didn't really accept it, she just didn't throw it back in their faces and get indignant about it. That's why it's just sitting there, and she can't figure out what to do with it until Komachi comes along.
I think you are missing the point of universalizing since you can't reasonable universalize an act that puts a lot of people in danger and impairs your ability to operate something as inherently dangerous as a vehicle.
If a guard whose duty it is to protect people from madmen with bombs and a moral philosophy does not find something wrong with failing to do this duty, you aren't reading Kant. Duty adds another issue because Shiki is bound by her word to uphold certain virtues, regardless of what she thinks. A soldier, a peace officer, is bound by similar oaths that dictate that he will perform his given orders to the best of his abilities as long as they do not violate the original oath. A good example of why this is bad is the infamous Munich bombing, some German officers came together, and on their own, decided not to engage the terrorists. This breach of duty was so great the very idea of it, rather than the consequence, is what prompted new CTU philosophy and doctrine within Germany and Europe.
Intent is everything for Kant, the scientist who wanted to cure AIDS because hes a greedy man isn't as moral as a man who did so because it is obligation to mankind. Deontology couldn't agree that committing an act because you want fame is moral.
Shiki doesn't know exactly what to do and that was my point, and she does accept the offering. If she were truly absolutist she would reject it based on the principle. Absolutism doesn't compromise, like the classic example of the man who is unable to afford some medicine for his wife otherwise she will die, and in this circumstance, he has no alternative but to steal it, he is still responsible but the guilt he has is significantly less than a man who wishes to steal that medicine to make Meth.
Intent matters but so does the action itself, you cannot universalize drunk driving under deontology under any circumstance. Inherent in an action is the effect it has, you can try to create a weird world where intent doesn't matter or where consequences doesn't matter, but it goes against how the world works. Hence why absolutism is so difficult to uphold because it requires a person to go so far beyond what feels right, since an absolutist view of morality can be just as twisted ans flawed as any other, if not more so.
Guys, teaching justice and moral to those who never gone through in difficulty is like describing the taste of chocolate ice cream to kids who have never eaten one.
To be able to critique something does not mean that I don't understand it. One of the major purposes of Kant was to try to create an absolute set of moral laws, and in trying to do so, the several critiques leveled against that help show why he didn't really succeed.
If you have to make all these case-by-case exceptions for certain things like being a security guard or driving a car, then you aren't being absolutist, which was the whole point of the argument I was making, which was that absolutist moral philosophy sounds great as an ideal, but when you start trying to actually map it out, it tends to fall apart, especially over many of the established critiques, which notably include the Trolly Problem, which isn't my critique, it's a long-standing argument against deontology.
You still don't do anything to explain how it is that driving drunk can't be universalized, because your way of claiming this implies you have a radically different understanding of the term and the moral philosophy than I do. After all, the idea that "the consequences don't matter" is pretty much the entire underpinning of the Kantian philosophy, it was that the actions and the intent behind them were all that mattered. To say that absolute deontology considers the consequences AT ALL is to be talking about something radically different than what I am talking about. The definition of Consequentialism is that only consequences matter, while the definition of Deontology, it's opposite, is that consequences do not matter, and in its place, the morality of an action is contained entirely within the action itself. (And what "feels right" is a bit of a problem, because that's not really a good definition for anything. After all, we all have different feelings for different things, and pretty much the literal definition of a psychopath is that they feel absolutely nothing wrong with torturing and killing other human beings... yet torturing and killing other human beings are what almost every moral code you can imagine would be most certain about declaring "wrong".)
----
To argue then that Shiki is then not judging along absolutist moral lines is... exactly what I was arguing in the first place.
----
The moral quandry of stealing medicine for a dying wife is actually an entirely different argument altogether. There are deontological (that one's duty to family superscedes one's demand to uphold society's laws) and consequentialist (that the harm of the death of the wife massively outweighs the relatively minor financial harm to the pharmacist) ways to argue for saving the wife by stealing, and the moral tension in that argument exists to highlight what you owe your real moral loyalties to - the greater societal harm that comes from condoning thievery, or the more devastating, but much more narrow and short-term harm to family for not doing anything to save one's family or loved ones, as well as the broader impact that dispassionately favoring ironclad dedication to order over love for family might have upon society. The axis of deontology vs. consequentialism flies perpendicular to that.
----
While this goes beside the point of the argument I am really trying to make, while I hold generally Consequentialist views on morality, the concept of Moral Luck does make me hold what would be considered some Deontological views, which is exactly why I take up that example of drunk driving, and would defend it. The two people who both drove drunk, only one of which actually harmed someone else because of it, both took the same calculation, and made the same choice - to say that one person is morally despicable for killing a person, but the other one had done nothing wrong is to literally mean that we are determining the morality of a person's actions by something completely beyond their control. Now, if we were to claim it is OK to say that our morality is beyond our control then we run into the problem of what, exactly, morality is even supposed to be in the first place? It is supposed to be the framework upon which we judge which decisions we can possibly make are "good" and which are "evil" or "right" and "wrong". If we make the judgement of our actions up to chance, we are defeating the entire purpose of morality being about our choices, and therefore, the only rational way to handle this Cognitive Dissonance is to state (in deontological form) that the only real way to judge the morality of an action you have taken is to judge the aspects you controlled, which means that all people who drive drunk are equally as morally responsible for potentially killing someone as is someone who actually did drive drunk and kill someone. This may not be as morally condemnable as is deliberately killing someone, especially since there is only a chance that it would kill someone, but it still is making a choice that puts the lives of others at risk, and that is morally condemnable.
With that said, you're also quite wrong in stating that every moral philosophy considers intent. Like I said, consequentialism would state that a doctor who cures cancer for the fame is exactly as moral as the doctor who cures cancer to stop people from suffering, because that's the definition of consequentialism: The intent doesn't matter, only the consequences do.
After all, a total pacifist will hold a moral philosophy that there is NO reason to use violence, and would probably extend that belief even to people who are police officers and soldiers, although a pacifist would probably say that they just shouldn't be soldiers in the first place. THAT is the reason for the military, even during times of draft, having exemptions for people who are completely morally opposed to any act of harm - because some people literally would choose "be killed" if pressed with "Kill or be killed". (In fact, it's a surprisingly high number of people. In Vietnam, the US Army did studies that found that as many as 70% of servicemen would fire their rifles only for show, to make their fellow soldiers think they were fighting, and would deliberately miss the enemy, even as the enemy came charging at them to kill them. In some cases, an entire platoon would open up fire upon a lone enemy in an open field for several seconds, only to find out that none of them were deliberately targetting the enemy.)
Ah, something for clarity on the last two paragraphs of the last comment I made:
What you had originally said was this:
Anelaid said: The intent has to be justified of course. That is a given for any philosophy.
To which I had responded about how that is not a given for any philosophy, and, in fact, consequentialism takes the exact opposite view - as it is defined by only being concerned with the results, and intents are irrelevant.
You then responded with a part about how that's not Kant's philosophy... which is irrelevant, and I know that's not Kant's philosophy, because Kant's a deontologist, but wasn't what I was arguing in the first place. I was arguing that there are moral philosophies which do not consider intent.
It is, after all, part of my entire, overarching argument in this thread, that people do not generally agree upon any one basis upon which you can measure the morality of a given set of actions. (Which in turn helps lead to the whole "everybody has their own set of truths" relativistic morality you hear about.) Which is why I take great pains to identify what the terms I am using are.
wow....Walls of text, ahoy! I just want to point out, in the Buddhism-like style the afterlife in touhou takes, hell is NOT an eternal punishment. It's more like a (REALLY FRAKING LONG) prison sentence, except you suffer varying degrees of torture while there. Even the lowest/worst 'hell' is not eternal, just ridiculously long (wiki says some accounts have it being over 10^18 years long). The article on the worst hell in Buddhism, Avici, also seems to infer that the intent behind your crimes does matter.
Thank you, MaximusFive! I was waitying for someone to point out that hell in Buddhism is not eternal (as opposed to hell in Christianity), and you'd think something like that has a huge impact on the moral discussion going on here. It downgrades this from a discussion on whether or not it was correct to condemn someone to eternal torment to whether or not it was correct for Shiki to condemn this guy to a really long and torturous prison sentence for his crimes, which, of course, is perfectly justified on her part. I seriously doubt the artist meant for this to be some thought-provoking piece on Christian beliefs (especially since Christianity is not too common in Japan), as opposed to just some story that was meant to protray Shiki in a more human light as opposed to some nag or immature and self-righteous brat as she's protrayed in some fan works.
Mmm... I know that reincarnation in a Buddist hell has a certain lifespan before they are reincarnated again, I simply didn't draw much attention to that point, since I was trying to focus upon something besides that point.
Thing is, though, it's a little odd to say that "it's only temporary" somehow makes something go from morally inexcusable to completely justifiable without at least some kind of explanation.
Hell is... well, it's Hell! It's a place designed to inflict massive amounts of suffering on people, and if it's immoral to inflict suffering on others, it's logical to say that inflicting torture that will one day stop is immoral if eternal torture is immoral, even if eternal torture could hardly be less immoral than temporary torture.
If you are going to say that it is there to "reform" someone, it just raises a question of just what kind of lesson takes 10^18 years for someone to learn? At that point, isn't it pretty much just melting someone's brain down and starting again from scratch quite a bit faster, and something that would involve far less pointless agony?
(Of course, if we're talking about how it's immoral to send sinners to Hell, and talking about Christianity, then it does beg the question of how moral God is for taking the "inexcusable" eternal tormet path...)
NWSiaCB said: If you are going to say that it is there to "reform" someone, it just raises a question of just what kind of lesson takes 10^18 years for someone to learn?
As i recall, being sentenced to Avici is a punishment reserved for those who have intentionally murdered those who gave them life, murdering one who has attained enlightenment, injuring or killing a Buddha, or inciting Buddhist holy war.
These are the only sins considered to be essentially unforgivable in Buddhist thought -- hence, Avici is considered an essentially permanent punishment (10^18 years is an over-literal interpretation of "kalpas without number" -- a kalpa being an era of time so long that discussing its duration is totally pointless).
Holy mother Russia, you guys. Although it's great to see that you both have your views and perks, don't you think you're taking this a liiiiittle too far? Just look at your posts.
I hate it when people complain about elongated comments and discussions. I loved reading this one particularly because there was a very healthy exchange of ideas and no one went overboard in expressing his/her emotions and beliefs.
It's almost as if they believe Danbooru should be free from intelligent comments. Of course they'll come up with theories about "how Danbooru should be".
And I'd rather be talking to an outright troll than people with zero tolerance with things that differ from themselves.
This is the longest wall of text I've ever seen on a Danbooru pict, guess I'll power through them. I'm really surprised at the number of "unintelligent" posts I've encountered (poorly typed out, plain stupid, etc), so far I've come across like, 2.
Lick_King said: I hate it when people complain about elongated comments and discussions. I loved reading this one particularly because there was a very healthy exchange of ideas and no one went overboard in expressing his/her emotions and beliefs.
It's almost as if they believe Danbooru should be free from intelligent comments. Of course they'll come up with theories about "how Danbooru should be".
And I'd rather be talking to an outright troll than people with zero tolerance with things that differ from themselves.
You come online to converse about philosophy, morality and spirituality?
Lick_King said: I hate it when people complain about elongated comments and discussions. I loved reading this one particularly because there was a very healthy exchange of ideas and no one went overboard in expressing his/her emotions and beliefs.
It's almost as if they believe Danbooru should be free from intelligent comments. Of course they'll come up with theories about "how Danbooru should be".
And I'd rather be talking to an outright troll than people with zero tolerance with things that differ from themselves.
It's great to see this post here after all the "woah you guys have written a lot I can't possibly read all that because I'm too lazy" comments. Otherwise I'd post the very same thing myself.
The moral debate did derail quite a bit from its original intent (the interpretation of Shiki's moral decision and the circumnstances to it), it was still a very interesting read, so thank both of you for it.
NWSiaCB said: Mmm... I know that reincarnation in a Buddist hell has a certain lifespan before they are reincarnated again, I simply didn't draw much attention to that point, since I was trying to focus upon something besides that point.
Thing is, though, it's a little odd to say that "it's only temporary" somehow makes something go from morally inexcusable to completely justifiable without at least some kind of explanation.
Hell is... well, it's Hell! It's a place designed to inflict massive amounts of suffering on people, and if it's immoral to inflict suffering on others, it's logical to say that inflicting torture that will one day stop is immoral if eternal torture is immoral, even if eternal torture could hardly be less immoral than temporary torture.
If you are going to say that it is there to "reform" someone, it just raises a question of just what kind of lesson takes 10^18 years for someone to learn? At that point, isn't it pretty much just melting someone's brain down and starting again from scratch quite a bit faster, and something that would involve far less pointless agony?
(Of course, if we're talking about how it's immoral to send sinners to Hell, and talking about Christianity, then it does beg the question of how moral God is for taking the "inexcusable" eternal tormet path...)
I also totally agree with this. The whole idea of hell associated to torture is immoral in itself. A criminal who had their head screwed up enough to be sent to hell, all things in consideration (circumstances, intent and consequences), should be rehabilitated through something similar to a psychologist's aid, not torture. Another alternative, like NWSiaCB suggested, would be to have their whole mindset erased and made anew. I don't know much about reincarnation in buddhism or any other theologies, but I'm pretty sure that's supposed to happen along with the reincarnation process anyway? there really wouldn't be a point in keeping the soul confined as a punishment if it were to start anew upon a clean moral drawing board since it would be punishment for the sake of punishment, instead of punishment as a rehabilitation measure. I'm guessing that if the mindset erasure upon reincarnation were not the case and there were no other available forms of rehabilitation, a prison-like confinement in a different plane with few to nothing to do but reflect upon one's immoral acts would be more befitting and moral a rehabilitative punishment than torture, be it temporary or eternal. Taking that into consideration, unless the hell that Shiki is sending the soul to is specified to be torture-free, her whole role as a Yama could be morally questioned. In order to keep enjoying Shiki's otherwise quite decent takes on morality, I'll just choose to believe in this torture-free hell if this issue is ever addressed with ambiguity again.
Ever since I read that manga with Shiki nagging on Mokou because of the immoralities she developed due to her immortality, I've been pretty keen on Shiki and have wanted to read more of the sort. This manga along with the discussion is very satisfying.
Now, one last thing.
Corbun said: You come online to converse about philosophy, morality and spirituality?
Do you come online to make fun of people who enjoy having intellectual discussions? You either imply the global internet community to be retarded or simply brag about chosen ignorance. If one of the two "come online to do x" stances were to be pitied or deserved to be laughed at, I'm pretty sure it would be yours.
Now, one last thing.Do you come online to make fun of people who enjoy having intellectual discussions? You either imply the global internet community to be retarded or simply brag about chosen ignorance. If one of the two "come online to do x" stances were to be pitied or deserved to be laughed at, I'm pretty sure it would be yours.
Getting ahead of yourself it seems, itching to use that intellect. I was saying that dont start bitching because everyone is making note of your conversation, just ignore them rather than do the same back. Don't bother asking a question if youre just going to answer it yourself immediately
This isn't depressing in the least. This is justice. Should I feel bad because those stupid kids don't understand that their father is the kind of sick bastard that deserves to rot away in hell? Well, I don't! Teach them, and they'll probably think the same thing. This brings feelings of happiness, not depression. I wonder why it's in this pool at all.
Kind of nice to come back to this, and see it still have some discussion, a year later.
Vhaltz said: I'm guessing that if the mindset erasure upon reincarnation were not the case and there were no other available forms of rehabilitation, a prison-like confinement in a different plane with few to nothing to do but reflect upon one's immoral acts would be more befitting and moral a rehabilitative punishment than torture, be it temporary or eternal.
There's a bit of a problem with the notion that any sort of torture that doesn't involve physical pain isn't really torture, however.
When you watch or read about people put into Solitary Confinement in real-life prisons, you always hear about the ways in which it will change people, even hardened criminals. Spending a year in a box with no human contact or chance to see any freedom even to walk a few feet away or have any sort of control over one's life or the capacity to make decisions that can have any consequence outside of simply what is within one's own mind, especially for terms greater than a year, will cause the human mind to completely disconnect from reality, and hide within itself to preserve what little sanity they can still maintain.
It guarantees that if you weren't a psychopath before, you sure will be one, now, if you are kept in a literal or metaphorical cage with no capacity to relate to other people, and as such are forced only to think about one's self. (Say "Hi!", Gasai Yuno!)
Rather, as you had said before, if you actually are trying to rehabilitate, what you need is serious psychiatric intervention. People aren't punished into caring about others, they can only grow to live a life where they feel connected to other people, and possess a desire to wish well to others if they are with others who are worth trusting and caring for.
For those that are truly and completely incapable of being saved, however, (which seems to be what Avici is for,) the idea simply seems to be to just throw them as far away from anyone they can harm as they possibly could, and give up on the idea of reform.
Corbun said: You come online to converse about philosophy, morality and spirituality?
Yes, actually.
I wouldn't really purposefully go to Danbooru for that reason, (I use Danbooru for Touhou doujins, really,) but I do go online to discuss these things, since it's difficult to talk about such a heady subject as moral philosophy when the overwhelming percentage of the population has no real interest in doing so. In fact, it was hard to talk with the other students in my moral philosophy college class, since THEY weren't interested in the topic, either, and were just getting credits.
It's more that you have to take the opportunities you can get with this sort of thing.
I do apologize to the people who were inconvenienced by having something they didn't want to read appear, but I would hope that you could simply declare it "tl;dr" and go on with your day without being too put off by it, and that that inconvenience is counterbalanced by the handful of people who do read the discussion who enjoyed it.
Cosmic-Fusion said: This isn't depressing in the least. This is justice. Should I feel bad because those stupid kids don't understand that their father is the kind of sick bastard that deserves to rot away in hell? Well, I don't! Teach them, and they'll probably think the same thing. This brings feelings of happiness, not depression. I wonder why it's in this pool at all.
... And then there's this side of the argument.
Blame my D&D-influenced mind for this, but I've always called it the "Lawful Neutral Morality Argument" - The law is the law, and those that break the law deserve pitiless but exactly measured and equal punishment for their crimes, regardless of circumstance. "Justice" and "Punishment" are synonymous in such terms, and words like "Fairness" or "Equality" mean "everyone is punished equally for the same class of crime".
While I obviously know nothing about your personal situation, whenever I see such a philosophy, it often comes from those people who have suffered the most injustice and unfairness in their lives, especially online friends who come from crushing poverty or places with terrible social injustice. It makes me think that the emotionless, mechanical nature of such a view of justice exists to try to banish the emotional side of their views on justice, which tend to be something more chaotic and emotional, if not simply bloody revenge, which they know is wrong, and as such, refuse to accept.
The thing is, legality and morality are separate concepts. One can cause people to be law-abiding citizens through thorough, consistent, and even-handed application of the law, but only acting in a certain way because one recognizes one will be caught and punished is rarely ever considered actually being moral. This is especially true when laws are written by fallible mortals, and blatantly immoral behavior (like dumping toxic chemicals you KNOW will kill people into the drinking water supply) can simply become legal through lobbying.
If I were to counter-argue your point, however, the children do know their father is a villain. They say as much. They simply still love their family, and will try to do what they can for their father, even if he was wrong. That it is, perhaps, unjust that we have a natural tendency to protect and nurture our kin even as we leave strangers to die (or even defend them when we know they are guilty) is something that one could validly argue against, but it is not as if they don't completely understand what is going on.
Corbun said: You come online to converse about philosophy, morality and spirituality?
No, I come online to enjoy myself when I'm not browsing for research and study materials. But when there's a good discussion going on about something, then I try to join because I also enjoy discussions.
@NWSiaCB I agree with your textwall to such an extent that it's even scary. Seeing that opinion on "Lawful Neutral" that I also share being put into words was really useful, and about the part regarding my earlier post:
NWSiaCB said: There's a bit of a problem with the notion that any sort of torture that doesn't involve physical pain isn't really torture, however.
When you watch or read about people put into Solitary Confinement in real-life prisons, you always hear about the ways in which it will change people, even hardened criminals. Spending a year in a box with no human contact or chance to see any freedom even to walk a few feet away or have any sort of control over one's life or the capacity to make decisions that can have any consequence outside of simply what is within one's own mind, especially for terms greater than a year, will cause the human mind to completely disconnect from reality, and hide within itself to preserve what little sanity they can still maintain.
It guarantees that if you weren't a psychopath before, you sure will be one, now, if you are kept in a literal or metaphorical cage with no capacity to relate to other people, and as such are forced only to think about one's self. (Say "Hi!", Gasai Yuno!)
I realized that when I said this:
Vhaltz said: a prison-like confinement in a different plane with few to nothing to do but reflect upon one's immoral acts would be more befitting and moral a rehabilitative punishment than torture, be it temporary or eternal.
I was completely off. Not only does eternal rehabilitative punishment make absolutely no sense, but I should've also specified that with this sort of punishment I didn't mean a complete void of freedom, leaving the sinner to do nothing but sit there and think, but rather a sort of "tunneling" into rehabilition. Giving the sinner reasons to avoid sin and prefer the sort of actions that'll lead to rehabilitation, something of that sort. I could probably word it out better, but since you mentioned D&D and probably have some knowledge on gamemastering I assume you'll understand what I mean by tunneling.
The comment part is priceless, in other words, worthless. But still, worth a night for it. People here are always great at what can they argue about from only a badly drawn picture.
Cosmic-Fusion said: This isn't depressing in the least. This is justice. Should I feel bad because those stupid kids don't understand that their father is the kind of sick bastard that deserves to rot away in hell? Well, I don't! Teach them, and they'll probably think the same thing. This brings feelings of happiness, not depression. I wonder why it's in this pool at all.
Not to be too nitpicky, but for some (myself included), family is family regardless of what crimes they have committed. Not to say he shouldn't pay for his crimes, but the sentiment itself (their offering) shouldn't be condemned.
My own description of hell was more of a humanizing thing anyways. Allows you to connect with people then shows you that they are your victims and things of that nature. Actually now that I think about it as effective that may be it's still kinda cruel.
Talking about that, a friend of mine is going to use the base nine theorem in the comments of another comic to get some extra credits for algebra. I'm talking about this comic: post #439608
Man this shows how danbooru is beyond awesome and epic. It's plain win.
The comic sure was super effective when it comes to being thought-provoking and emotionally effective. If these comments don't prove that, nothing does. The moral conflict was meaningful and satisfyingly resolved and the actions were in character. This is almost the kind of comic one would analyze on literature courses were it not so short and a derivative work for a series of shoot-'em-up games.
That last phrase, "... that's it"... who's the one saying it? One of the kids on the bottom part of the image?
I think it's Komachi, if you read the last page you will notice that
But seriously, do we have a tag for epic discusions ?
Btw, the curiousity of understanding what those people've written on the text wall up there will haunt me untill next month -_- (Not good at both English AND Philosophy, although I know Kant)