|
|
Post by claptonpond on Oct 6, 2004 6:25:45 GMT -5
I think perhaps this is where I am awarded the Pig-Headed Wanker of the Month trophy... I'm not sure a community can "ban" someone from committing torture. If someone is the kind of person who is capable of doing it and the opportunity and motive arise, ban or not, I believe they would do it. A community can agree collectively to plant potatoes instead of corn, or to make buses instead of bicycles but can a community realistically impose moral standards simply through debate and discussion? Yes, it can probably do so through culture, but a culture which abhors human suffering and values human existence is not the same as merely "outlawing" certain acts. Furthermore, doesn't the collective banning of such acts absolve individuals of the responsibility to behave in certain ways because such behaviour is the right thing to do rather than unacceptable behaviour being proscribed by the majority? If I choose not to cause harm to others because I believe personally that to do so would be wrong then I believe I am a more responsible person than someone who does not harm others because he/she is obeying a law. Their only act is one of obedience to the collective thinking, whereas without the ban each person must decide the issue, and understand the arguments, for themself. Isn't that a stronger, more resilient community? I see where you're coming from, S&V, but... I don't think you need to interpret the 'ban' as an edict from the community saying "thou shalt not torture". It's actually something more concrete than that. If I came across someone torturing another person (or an animal, for that matter), I'd do what I could to stop them. Including physical violence, if that's what it took. And I reckon a lot of people would do the same. Most people, if they weren't conditioned to rely on the state to do it for them. Which amounts to a ban. Sometimes forcing people to obey collective thinking is the right thing to do. So there's a conflict that arises from letting each person decide what's the right thing to do. But only when there are enough people that feel strongly enough to physically oppose someone's choice. I guess what I'm saying is that the ban would consist of direct action against whoever was doing the torturing. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Oct 6, 2004 6:42:59 GMT -5
Double post by me bleeh.
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Oct 6, 2004 6:47:31 GMT -5
Sometimes forcing people to obey collective thinking is the right thing to do. That would border on authoritarianism. I see what you are saying and agree (intervening in torture of humans and animals) but fact remains in forcing collective thinking =authoritarinism Stalinism - Your leader is great! Everything he does is great! Those people deserve to die! Capitalism - Our products are great! All our products are great! You deserve it! buy! buy! buy! |
|
|
|
Post by claptonpond on Oct 6, 2004 8:45:38 GMT -5
That would border on authoritarianism. I see what you are saying and agree (intervening in torture of humans and animals) but fact remains in forcing collective thinking =authoritarinism Stalinism - Your leader is great! Everything he does is great! Those people deserve to die! Capitalism - Our products are great! All our products are great! You deserve it! buy! buy! buy! Your stalinism and capitalism examples aren't really collective thinking though - they're the elite trying to force the collective to think that way. Problem is, sometimes you have to force people not to behave in authoritarian ways (torture, slavery, whatever). How do you do that without running the risk of becoming authoritarian yourself? |
|
|
|
Post by Sacco & Vanzetti on Oct 6, 2004 10:49:53 GMT -5
I guess what I'm saying is that the ban would consist of direct action against whoever was doing the torturing. I would certainly agree with this, and the direct action could be either individual or collective. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Oct 7, 2004 7:46:41 GMT -5
Your stalinism and capitalism examples aren't really collective thinking though - they're the elite trying to force the collective to think that way. Problem is, sometimes you have to force people not to behave in authoritarian ways (torture, slavery, whatever). How do you do that without running the risk of becoming authoritarian yourself? When the elite (although they are not really elite, I prefer the term 'utter shits', do succeed in forcing the collective to think that way, that is authoritarianism.....think like we want you to think....think like us.....as one......as the model citizen, or the model consumer.......both slaves to either the stalinst state or the consumerist capitalist state or corporations. The question of how to stop authoritarianism without becoming one yourself is not to impose, but to suggest as the best course of action from grassroots, suggesting alternatives. |
|
|
|
Post by claptonpond on Oct 7, 2004 7:58:19 GMT -5
When the elite (although they are not really elite, I prefer the term 'utter shits', do succeed in forcing the collective to think that way, that is authoritarianism.....think like we want you to think....think like us.....as one......as the model citizen, or the model consumer.......both slaves to either the stalinst state or the consumerist capitalist state or corporations. No, when they succeed it's totalitarianism, just trying is enough to be authoritarian. But I'm just nitpicking now. So if you came across someone torturing another person, you'd suggest alternatives? What if they rejected your alternatives and decided to carry on torturing? My answer would be to hit them until they stopped, which is admittedly authoritarian. Is there a better way? |
|
|
|
Post by Sacco & Vanzetti on Oct 7, 2004 11:29:43 GMT -5
Here I am on both sides of the fence at the same time! What a liberating feeling that is!
I'm certainly up for a bit of smack-in-the-mouth politics where it's required. However, I believe while it's entirely possible for a collective to announce that certain behaviour is unacceptable, I do not believe it can (or, more importantly should) "outlaw" it.
It has to be an individual decision, otherwise individuals are diminished because they have not had the opportunity to arrive at that decision themselves.
Similarly, an individual response by someone witnessing someone else practising torture could easily be to give them a good kick in the ass etc. And quite rightly.
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Oct 8, 2004 5:39:48 GMT -5
No, when they succeed it's totalitarianism, just trying is enough to be authoritarian. But I'm just nitpicking now. So if you came across someone torturing another person, you'd suggest alternatives? What if they rejected your alternatives and decided to carry on torturing? My answer would be to hit them until they stopped, which is admittedly authoritarian. Is there a better way? Nitpick away, it is actually quite healthy in a discussion. Ah, but I thought we were talking about collective authoritarinism and totalitarianism, not individual responses to an act they disagree with. It depends on the torture, does it not? If the torturer held a gun and had shot the tortured in the knee caps, and then points the gun at you, you do suggest alternatives Put the gun down Go ahead shoot me Leave the man alone. Individually on a one to one basis, you decide when you are there how to stop something you don't like. Suggesting alternatives is the start of intelligent discussion at least. It's a case by case basis individually. But one thing is for certain, you would intervene somehow. Talking would be one of them. Physical action would be another. |
|
|
|
Post by claptonpond on Oct 8, 2004 6:03:43 GMT -5
S&V and AIM, I actually agree with what you've both said.
Where it gets tricky, though, is when the situation requires a collective response (frinstance you can't take on the torturer by yourself so you round up a posse). Is a collective response more authoritarian than an individual one? And what if you decide in advance on a collective response (because there won't be time for collective decision-making when the situation arises)? Does that make a difference?
These are questions that arise fairly regularly in real life, and I'm never entirely satisfied with the answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Oct 9, 2004 6:43:45 GMT -5
Anything carried out by a collective or majority (Tyrnanny by majority) can be seen as authoritarianism, because it could be seen as the imposing of will.
But then again, it can also be seen at the kicking down of a rotting door.
It could be said then, that the Tyranny of the majority overthrow the tyranny of the minority in comparison to the people.
That is not to say this is wrong, but authoritarianism can be seen in all sorts of things.
A collective response could be seen as more authoritarianism if the collective impose their will on another who imposes his will on a victim?
I know, not a great answer, but what I'm trying to say is that authoritarianism can be seen in alot of things.
On another note There is a difference between co-operative collectivism, as in a commune, and just collectivism from tyranny (capitalism and stalinism)
A study was done years ago. In this study, there was 6 'planted' humans were in an experiment, and when asked a question, all said the wrong answer on purpose.
The seventh person, who was not a 'plant', knew the right answer, but also said the wrong answer because the other 6 did.
Does this show a lack of individuality and freedom of thought, or a willingness to co-operate?
I say the former and a bit of the latter. By suggestion, he agreed with what is wrong.
Tyranny of the majority became in effect through his willingness to conform.
He did not speak out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sacco & Vanzetti on Oct 22, 2004 10:00:04 GMT -5
You will note that the national animal for S&V is the homo sapien.
I have to admit that when the issue came up this time we opted for "shoot the ones we have to" and for shovelling their bodies into a ditch.
Having tried to deal with stalinists in many other ways, we are testing this method of ideological re-education.
|
|
