Yes, I would extend it to slavery. But I'd disagree that no one person had any real impact. Every single slaveholder had a direct impact on another person's life, of depriving them of freedom and autonomy. Many government and cultural leaders had a significant impact in passing or maintaining laws that affected millions of slaves directly, or had a significant impact on creating and maintaining norms that said torturing humans was okay if you owned them.

I don't have a general principle here - I make this evaluation on a case-by-case basis based on my read of the person.

I think citizens should view voting as a duty in a democracy. I think voting in the aggregate does make a difference, and moral norms are one of the ways that we encourage people to act in collectively rational ways, even if each individual act doesn't make a big difference. I also think prefer a voting populace that is biased towards people with high conscientiousness, and they are more likely to respond to moral norms like that.

That being said, for most how you vote, much like political beliefs, is primarily a function of how the people you know vote. So I don't place very much moral weight on the actual act of voting (I'm assuming we're talking about present-day US).

I'd rather live with a bunch of ideologues working for the greater good than a bunch of racists. And see no reason to think the former are more likely to use violent force than the latter.

That's a great point. So would you view Sally differently if she was a Senator?

Fair enough.

I don't agree with anything here. Democracy is a system by which the majority oppress the minority. And for a democracy (or even a republic like ours) to not turn into the biggest demagogue rules you need strict rules on voting.

But we are really just turning to politics too much here. I'm fine with that, but it doesn't really go with forum.

I see what you are saying, but at some point voting for slavery seems wrong to me.

I was very explicate in my two group descriptions. This does not reflect the scenario I expressed.

What are your moral views on being a "good person"?

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I think I can ask a more a pertinent question if I describe the scenario in value-neutral language:

"Is non-consensual sexual intercourse with a twelve-year-old solely for the sexual gratification of the aggressor always morally wrong? "

Yes, US Senators have a responsibility much greater than average citizens to advocate for good policy and values.

Sure, I think voting for slavery is wrong, I think we are mostly talking about how wrong.

Sure, I've already acknowledged I am an "authoritarian" and "statist," so I assume you know that I'm okay with using violent force to enforce some rules.

I think I understand the question, but correct me if I'm wrong.

The way I see it, morality is always tied to a value system because good and bad don't exist in themselves. I would argue that even if your belief is that behavior which is in line with "human nature" is what is good, that too is a value system based on subjective beliefs and doesn't universally apply.

Even if 99.9% of humanity agrees, it's still a subjective PoV, and under different circumstances, it would be different. For example, if this was done to a girl of a foreign tribe in the year 5000 BC, I doubt it would be considered wrong, because outsiders were treated as animals - or worse - and there was no moral obligations towards people just for being people. In the Roman empire, (and many others) which had slaves, they were abused, tortured and killed just for passing the time of the wealthy, and that was considered perfectly fine. It is only wrong if the life/well-being of the 5-year old girl holds value, and I don't think it does in a belief system which doesn't stem from a sort of humanism.

I think in this case it is more a case of "broadly accepted" than of applying to everyone, because if it did apply to everyone it should apply under all cultural/historical circumstances or it would not apply to all human beings.

What constitutes moral discernment? People have always had perceptions of what is good and what is bad based on cultural values and beliefs, some of these views just became broad. If we were descendents from a cannibalistic tribe instead of people schooled in Greek ethics/morals, killing and eating human beings would probably widely be considered sacred.

The capacity to discern moral from immoral is not possible if you don't have a value system which tells you what is good or bad, and such a system does not exist universally. There are things we are naturally inclined to like/dislike or want/not want, but I think that's a separate thing and not morality (unless you adhere to a moral value system which states that what is natural is good).

Isn't a person that would vote for slavery the person that would be very likely to enslave people given the power?

Another way to look at it, if Hitler wanted to kill 6 million jews, but didn't have the power so was not able to kill anyway, would he cease being a bad person?

But only if you agree with these rules, right? I am assuming that you were not ok with slavery. How does this not lead your beliefs to be boiled down to, "you are ok with force as long as its force you like?"

Aren't you concerned with giving the state the power to use violent force, only to be taken over by someone that will use this power for "evil" purposes?

I'm guessing Hitler in particular would have probably still been a bad person, even if he never had the specific opportunity to kill millions of people. And yes, people with bad political beliefs are more likely if they gain power to do bad things. But since few people actually have do have significant political power, I think this is usually less important than eg how they treat the people they come in contact with everyday.

No, as I said, I think you should obey bad laws as well. I think there is a role for civil disobedience against injustice, and I think some areas of life are too central to personal identity to give up control to the state (eg religious identity), but otherwise, yeah, follow the law.

I'm okay with force that I don't like. For instance, I'd like it if I wasn't forced to pay taxes, but everyone else was. But I'm okay with being forced to pay taxes as long as everyone else is as well. However, I'll grant that there is an element of "I'm okay with force as long as it's force I like" in my view. Violence, or the threat of violence, is inevitable in the world as we know it, so violence should be guided by laws and norms that many people have a say in creating/influencing. We'll never get unanimity, so I think democratic procedures is the best way we have to set these rules.

First, I'm not really concerned with this because I didn't. When I was born the state already had the power to use violent force. I also see no acceptable viable path to get to a stateless society. Thus, my concern is more about how to structure the state to make it less likely that such evil people have power, and to lessen the harm they can cause when when they do.

Jib, it seems that you are too quick to think of things categorically. Some things are multifaceted. Some things are on a continuum. Some things are subjective. All things change over time.

I hope you find this helpful with your thinking.

Brian just made a better post, but Ill also give you my share.

If you have a massively foul thought in your head, such as this. It will affect your personality on many levels. This in turn will influence your actions.

You dont just want to kill 6 Million Jews, you need anger, hatred, unforgiveness and probably a lot more negative attributes in order to produce such thoughts. These emotions will shine through in other areas.

Ive come to realise that with most of my quarrels, the issue is almost never the issue that the quarrel is about. If you dig deep enough youll often find way different reasons as to what the actual issue is.

To bring that back to the OP:
Do you believe Sally is happy with her life?

Because to me a position like:
Sally: Nazism is just about the good of the German people.

Suggest to me that Sally is/was very unhappy about something that happend in her life. Which btw is very understandable if you are a German and at any point in time had to deal with the social state directly or indirectly. Because its a lot less social than one would think and thats also the main reason for AfD.

The reality is, we categorize people and things in the real world. It's not black and white, that's why I posed the question. We all have people we think of as good people and bad people. Given today's climate I was curious how others drew that line.

Again, the issue is that when people vote, in the aggregate the commit violent force against others. Indirectly anyway. That's important.

You continue to hold open this "unless" clause. Which means you are cherry picking.

I would argue the state caused way more violence than it stops. So if you want to minimize violence there's only one option.

Well that's not true. The US was founded as a minarchy. It's gained all the power over time. And continues to do so now. If the government gains the power to shut down all private health insurance it will be a disaster. Now imagine your worst enemy having a complete monopoly on health for the country.

And just because you cannot see a viable path, doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Most people could not see a viable path away from slavery, but that worked out pretty well.

I don't tend to think of people as good or bad. People are too complicated for such a simplification to make any sense to me. There are exceptions where a person is basically a caricature, but those people are pretty rare.

I do tend to find some people likable, but that is different.

]

The problem is that it isn't true.

Here is an easy example: I would have killed at least two people so far in my life if force were not outsourced to the state.

Also, Pinker's entire book about the subject.

Kill everyone, right? If no people there would be no people problems.

It isn't swallowing koolaid or having faith that makes someone a good person, that seems for sure.

I highly doubt that, but whatever. You are asserting that the State provides a consequence for murder that lessens the amount of murder. Why would we think that without the state there would be no consequences preventing murder? And there is a massive amount of people, like myself, that don't murder for reasons outside of external consequences. And the State has killed hundreds of millions of people. That's pretty hard to compete with.

Ok.

Nope.

I asserted nothing of the sort.

In the first instance, it was a rapist who went to jail instead of being killed by me. At the time, I would have preferred to kill him and accept whatever consequences would have been, but him going to jail eventually assuaged me sufficiently that I don't feel the need to.

In the second instance, it would have been a very clear case of self-defense had the authorities not been available to intervene and use much less force than I would have had to use.



Well, that was easier than I expected.



Then it must be spay/neuter them prior to them reaching puberty.

Let's recap the argument. I said,

Then you said

And then you provided an anecdote where you state the State prevented you from committing two killings.

My argument was never that the State doesn't prevent any violence. Only that it causes more than it prevents. So my point still stands.

Ok, so what about all of the violence caused by the "war on drugs"? And I'm not really concerned with the sort of force. Defensive for is legitimate in my views. I am not a pacifist.

What was easy? You made a statement that a guy wrote a book. That's not an argument, so I said ok.


Nope.

I also said see Pinkers book on the subject.

Given that you haven't presented much more than bald faced claims, I don't think your point has even gotten off the floor, let alone remained standing.

Prove that the state causes more violence than it prevents. Take your time, since it will require research into prevalence of violence and some clever argumentation.



Whataboutisms don't really fly.



I assume, as someone clearly interested in the topic much more than I am, that you have read the book. I also assume that you would happily present a refutation of the book if you had one.

I'm not particularly interested in quoting the entire book at you, but it uses actual data on violence and it comes to the precise opposite conclusion as you.

I remain convinced that it is much more likely that his conclusions are more correct. Hence, your point doesn't stand.

Since I don't accept the non-aggression principle, I don't assume this is a bad thing. However, my primary point here is not addressed by this argument. I'm not claiming that there is no moral significance to how people vote or their political beliefs. Rather, I'm claiming that this significance is generally overrated in American culture today.

FWIW, this skepticism about the great moral significance of a person's beliefs is also one of the reasons I find evangelical Christianity unpersuasive. I find the claim that a person's beliefs about the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, and so on could justify an eternity of torment to be morally disastrous.

No it doesn't, it just means I am able to process and accept moral claims longer than a single clause.



Okay, then do so.



I'm a little younger than your reply supposes - when I was born the US was definitely not a minarchy and its founding was already a long time ago.

Yeah, I'm not saying it is impossible, just that I don't see how to get there, so it is a politically impotent ideology.

Ok.

The State has slaughtered hundreds of millions of people. They have also enslaved (non violent criminals, conscription etc) hundreds of millions of people. Not to mention that it perpetuated slavery. Those are all facts. The State is the number one perpetrator of violence. It's not even close. If you want to say that there would be even more violence without State, then the onus is on you.

Ignoring that this is a total propaganda term, how in a conversation about the net amount of violent caused by the State is the violence they commit not relevant?

The point was not about whether or not you agreed with the NAP. You stated

If it's true that people's vote in aggregate makes a difference, and it is true that they are voting for violent force (my view not yours). Then how people vote does reflect on their morality.

While I agree with the bolded, it does not follow from the you previous statement.

[/quote]No it doesn't, it just means I am able to process and accept moral claims longer than a single clause. [/quote]

No it doesn't. You cannot eat your cake and have it to. You cannot claim that what the State says/does does not make it moral while claiming that something is moral because the state says/does it.

As I stated above, the state is the number one perpetrator of aggressive violent force. The State has committed aggressive violence against hundreds of millions of people (more depending on if we are including theft). The market protects people every single day, very successfully. Without the State it is reasonable to believe the market would extend it's protective reach. So you are left defending the claim that more than hundreds of millions of acts of violence would occur in the absence.


So you believe the State has the exact same amount of power as the day you were born?

And people before 1865 didn't see how we could have a world without slavery. They were wrong. So your inability to see a path isn't a very convincing argument.

I have to turn in my macbook to Apple for a battery recall. So after today I will probably not really be responding as typing on my phone these long posts is super difficult. Hopefully I will have it back in a week or so.

See Pinker's book. The onus is back on you to refute it. I can post a link to where to purchase it if you would like.


As a strong believer in property rights, I am sure that you understand that it would be morally wrong for me to block quote the entire book at you.



It is not a propaganda term. It describes a poor argument style.

The only thing that matters is whether the state causes an increase in violence. Again, see Pinker's book, which describes this in excruciating detail.

If you live within a reasonable distance of a public library, you can use their computer services that almost all public libraries now have. Provided by the State through various monetary mechanisms. I just mailed in my yearly check for property taxes and a portion of that money is allocated for the Public Library near where I reside. The point being there is an alternative to keep the conversation(s) going without a hiatus. A small inconvenience to you is not an excuse that a Holy Man like myself will accept. You should understand that.