From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Dahmerian ethics(!?!).  Was Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:03:23 GMT

In <viking.712466816@vincent1.iastate.edu> Dan Sorenson writes:

In <1992Jul29.144410.27807@clpd.kodak.com>
 black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]

>>Dan Sorenson writes:
>>>	If they can do it, it's doesn't matter a whole lot what I think,
>>>does it?  If their morals show it's fine, it's fine.  Morals go to those 
>>>who can enforce them.
>
>Robert Black wrote:
>>Right and Jeffrey Dahlmer was perfectly moral until he got caught, at
>>which time he could no longer enforce his morals so he suddenly and 
>>magically became immoral at the instant of his arrest?
>
>Dan Sorenson writes:
>	Sounds about right to me.  Let's say Jeffrey had a Kill-O-Zap
>ion blaster with automatic targeting and managed to kill the police
>who tried to arrest him.  A riot of people who think he's immoral come
>to arrest him, but he gets them all.  Guess what?  He's morally fine
>because _he's_ the only one left to judge.  Prior to being caught, he
>was the only one who knew about it and could judge it.  The police are
>the muscle society used to enforce its collective morales.  Don't
>confuse the issue by assumming your morals are always the correct ones.
>Jeffrey's morals disagree, but they are just a valid.  Sick, but valid.

Dahmer's morals are not "just as valid" if he is unwilling to
voluntarily subject himself to the type of treatment that he
intentionally and forcibly inflicted on others.

Also it seems like a contradiction for you to refer to an individual's
morals as "sick, but valid." When you refer to Dahmerian ethics as
"sick", you're passing judgment on his ethics and manifesting
intolerance toward him.  What happened to your idea expressed below
about not judging people by YOUR ethical code?

You're also saying that if his ethics are really as valid as yours,
then yours are equally "sick."

>Dan Sorenson writes:
>The only reason he's locked in jail is because enough people opposed them.
>I'm certain a devout Mormon would give you a good reason for polygamy and
>how it is morally right, but it makes no difference if it's true or not
>when the government has the power to enforce its own moral claims.
>
>>Dan Sorenson writes:
>>>I think many people could be killed and nothing but good come from it.
>>>Murders, rapists, and child molesters come to mind, but I digress...
>
Robert Black wrote:
>>Why? As long as these murderers, rapists, and child molesters can get
>>away with their behavior and don't see that they're doing something
>>wrong, then according to your ethics they are perfectly moral.  How can
>>it be "good" to kill a moral person?
>
Dan Sorenson writes:
>	Think of it as civic improvement.  I didn't say it would me
>morally right, just that many of them could be killed and nothing but
>good come of it.  That killing need not be murder, you know.

The question still seems unanswered.  How can it be "good" to kill a
moral person?  Are you suggesting that civic improvement is the "good"
that results from killing these good people? Again you're lapsing into
the practice of making judgments based on your own ethical code.  That's
fine, except that it shows you don't really believe that all ethical
theories are equally valid.  You appear to believe yours is more valid
(better).  How did you decide this?  What criteria did you use to decide
whether an action is one of civic improvement or civic regression?

>
Robert Black wrote:
>>Dan, you must be pulling our leg with this pseudo-ethical pap.  Tell me
>>you're just joking and meant to put a big smilie down here at the end. 
>
Dan Sorenson writes:
>	Sorry Rob, but I truly believe that people should not be judged
>based solely on my ethical code, and I expect that same treatment from
>others.  

Finally a modest amount of sense intrudes :-).  We have here at
least the germ of a workable ethical principle.  In calling for 
others to treat you in the way that you think it right to treat
them, - albeit in a very limited intellectual domain of making
ethical judgments - you have taken a small step toward the sensible
repudiation of your previously untenable ethical relativism.

Why not generalize what you have just said?  The result could be
something like this: "Do unto others only those actions whose
projected impact you would voluntarily and willingly accept on
yourself."  Now append a few reasonable exceptions to handle
defense or wartime activities.  Aren't we now on the road to a
universal ethical standard which can be used to evaluate the
ethics of an individual's actions?

And then we can turn away from that sterile ethical relativism,
which has been so frequently proselytized to the general readership
of t.p.a. but which is so patently self-defeating and can be used
to justify anything and everything.

>I'm also enough of a realist to know that what I think doesn't
>mean zip/squat unless I've some power to enforce my views with.  I deal
>with the effective, not the abstract or absolute, in this view.  Don't
>take it to mean more than that.

Here you're not talking about ethics, but about power.  If those who
wield the power are not themselves willing to be treated as they treat
others, then they're acting unethically, no matter how successful they
are at imposing their will on others. 

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals