[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.10517

File: 1643333787826.png (390.48 KB, 800x533, 800:533, medium.png) ImgOps Google

A good pony is a pony who values state violence.  Probably a pony who is helped by state violence.  Probably a pony who would not even think the first sentence -- a good pony feels no impulse to analyze their goodness, they need only condemn badness.

I don't think I'm a good pony. I don't think I can become one.  It's too late.

I'm sorta stuck.  Maybe the best I can do is to not bother anypony.

 No.10519

State violence is not inherently just.

 No.10526

>>10519
I gather when someone holds this view persuasively, governments find it appropriate to apply violence directly to that person to show how wrong the person is.

(To be clear, not every state in every instance.  Tolerance varies.  But the probably of response grows as negative views about the righteousness of state violence become an existential threat to the state's capacity to continue to do violence.)

 No.10527

>>10526
>>10526
> gather when someone holds this view persuasively, governments find it appropriate to apply violence directly to that person to show how wrong the person is.

That ... doesn't make the state right

 No.10528

>>10526
Whether I live or die, imprisoned or free, that doesn't change it.

Morality is philosophy, not mere power.

 No.10529

Well, state violence is only directed at harming and killing bad people.  Or people who have made bad decisions -- it's another discussion when/if bad choices make someone a bad person, and what is unforgivable, but anyway.  That sounds moral, right?  No good people need stand up for bad people.  Why, doing so questions their goodness, their social connections.  "Associates with criminals." -- can't have stuff like that in our good people.

Of course, the state is so good that collateral damage -- harming good people, too -- is acceptable.  As long as it's mostly not the goal.  And there will be 'misunderstandings' when using violence -- maybe the target was actually not bad people at all, but someone over-did the violence.  It's hard for a state to really go too far, so we accept that as well.

Bad people are defined as those the state targets, of course.  Enemies, subversives, protesters, terrorists, criminals, extremists.  But the state has the prerogative to define these categories in detail or make as many as necessary.

Obviously, this goes in a bit of a circle logically.  So I think it works best when you begin by feeling the state is trustworthy in identifying and harming bad people, and helping good people.  If you don't start from that point of view, I don't see a way to establish it.  Especially in general for all states that have been or might be.

>>10527
>>10528
I gather there's another theory of moral justice than justice coming from the greatest capacity for violence.

 No.10530

>>10529
>Well, state violence is only directed at harming and killing bad people.  
Even if we presume the state dictates who equates to bad, that isn't true.
Suspects are not always actually criminals. Nor does the person assumed to be a suspect always actually be one.
Identity is not always conformable, nor is it always known the facts of a situation.
Even if we assume law is automatically just, violence still is committed against innocents as a matter of course.

>That sounds moral, right?
Not really. Truth be told, given your seeming disagreement with the concept of morality by right of force, I've got no idea your metric for morality at all.
Is it just what the state says?
Why is that moral to you?
Thus far, I've not seen an argument of philosophy for your position, just an assertion.

>It's hard for a state to really go too far, so we accept that as well.
You.
I certainly don't.
Nor do I think it's a commonly accepted item.

>Obviously, this goes in a bit of a circle logically.  So I think it works best when you begin by feeling the state is trustworthy in identifying and harming bad people, and helping good people.  
This retains the circular logic, it simply applies the responsibility elsewhere.

You've assumed the state defines good and bad.
This is not changed whether or not you trust or distrust the state to make that characterization.
In fact, the logic makes it impossible not to trust the state in the matter. They are the arbiters of good and bad, thus it's not a matter of trust, merely definition.

Again, though, there's not an argument of logic made for why the state dictates morality to begin with. Especially given we've set aside power as the defining characteristic, it seems.

 No.10531

File: 1643934007841.png (67.33 KB, 250x250, 1:1, thumb.png) ImgOps Google

>>10530
>You've assumed the state defines good and bad.
Right, I've not attempted an argument because I don't have one that's genuine.

I can give you four conventional arguments for state power, if you like.  See if any appeal:

1) State leadership is divine.  Or for a secular state, experts.

2) The state might not be perfect, but it protects you from the next worst thing that would fill the power vacuum if the state dissolved.

3) The state's morality is linked to the morality of the majority of individuals.  You have to trust the state accuracy carries out the will of the majority and that the majority have good sense, of course.  Applies to democratic states.

4) In making use of state services or occupying state territory, you have bound yourself in respect and obedience toward state power.  You consented.

 No.10536

>>10531
Save for the first, none of these guarantee universal morality in the state.

A state can, for instance, become worse than the alternative. Thus the plethora of revolutions and rebellions throughout history, seeking alternative to exactly that.

Likewise, the 'majority of individuals' depends heavily on where you are, not to mention states have a nasty habbit of working hard to ensure unelected members of the government gain power and no longer have to answer to the people anyway.

And of course, consent can be revoked.

 No.10543

>>10536
>Thus the plethora of revolutions and rebellions throughout history, seeking alternative to exactly that.
Good point.  Most believe the American Republic is/was better than the British Empire.  Maybe that's PR, I don't imagine the British are much more upset with their government today than Americans are with theirs.  But if revolution is valid, it calls into question any state.

>no longer have to answer to the people anyway
Right.  America isn't even suppose to be a democracy anyway.  It's democratic, which I gather means the citizens may provide some input by voting.  But the actual majority needn't decide things.  And this was by design -- few of the founders trusted majority rule, and explicitly not rule by the majority of subject humans.

>And of course, consent can be revoked.

Right.  Locke and Hobbes wrestle with this problem.  People might consent to government when no great sacrifice is involved, but how do you hook subjects into fighting a war or paying taxes?  You need a social contract that is hard to revoke.  Probably you need a bit of a threat to maintain leverage.

-

I suppose I can admit, while I can poke holes in other systems of ethics, I don't have a explicit ethical system for myself.  Maybe asking a state to justify the violence is unfair.  I do not attempt to justify my actions.

I know people don't want me to criticize the state.  States exist nearly everywhere because people like them and feel they are a source of authority.  But I don't feel good about violence and it's hard to know what to do with the unsettled feeling.  I try to be a good, respectful person/pony.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]