Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In line with the "can atheists be moral" thread I'd like to posit a new question.

Can extremists be moral? Argument-no
Every extremist, via action or inaction does harm. Even radical anti violence crowd, it could be argued, could cause harm my not stopping a criminal or dictator. As example-very few peaceful revolutions survived the polizei response-Tianamen square, 1917 Moscow, Tibet, and current Myanmar as examples.

Thoughts?

Depends on your textbook definition of morality.

IMHO, no they are not - the function of extremism is to "force your ideals" upon others, and this goes against most definitions of morality.

Is that the definition or just no compromise? I've seen a few pretty extreme types that were just rtyign to be left alone.

jfrazell wrote:Is that the definition or just no compromise? I've seen a few pretty extreme types that were just rtyign to be left alone.

The Amish come to mind there.

Can they be moral? Certainly. It just depends on what extremists they are shooting for and what their morals are. Just because their agenda doesn't mesh with yours (or others) doesn't mean that they are amoral. However extremists of most stripes tend to not mesh all that well with society. This is usually due to their tendency to try to force their beliefs on others (something we all know is really annoying).

jfrazell wrote:

Can extremists be moral? Argument-no
Every extremist, via action or inaction does harm.

Surely though that criticism can be thrown at every person regardless of their beliefs/strength there-of.

In fact I would argue almost the opposite of "your" line : If a person acts with steadfast conviction and absolute faith in the justness of their cause then, even if it is only from their perspective, then they are acting morally, presumably more so than someone with a lesser sense of conviction in the cause.

Of course the above is subject to there not being some form of a priori morality or universal level of "goodness" possibly.

Pheonix: Depends on if you consider the Amish to be extremists. They seem far to passive to warrant that description.

keezus wrote:Pheonix: Depends on if you consider the Amish to be extremists. They seem far to passive to warrant that description.

Passive, yes. However their abandonment of modern civilization and technology goes to a level I would describe as "extreme". Are they bad people? I would say no. Are they forcing their beliefs on others? Depends on how tightly their reign in their children I suppose. Do they strictly adhere to a fairly radical philosophy that governs how they live? They most certainly do.

I'd agree with Phoenix that they could be considered extreme. They separate themselves from society. But it might be a case study in arguing YES.

In fact I would argue almost the opposite of "your" line : If a person acts with steadfast conviction and absolute faith in the justness of their cause then, even if it is only from their perspective, then they are acting morally, presumably more so than someone with a lesser sense of conviction in the cause.

How does square with serial killers and dictators? The definition doesn't seem to fit. How about abortion clinic bombers (or inversely recruiting center bombers)?

No, extremists cannot be moral. Morality, at least in its effective form, is about embracing the realization that the self is not unique in a world populated by 6.6 billion other selves. It leads one to acknowledge that a significant body of chance and reason stands in the face of any true significance existing within the observations of any given individual. As such, morality should always place us in a position which requires us to learn more than teach.

Extremists have reached the opposite conclusion. They believe that they have discovered some unique 'truth' which must be shared with the world in its pure 'true' form. They do not listen, they do not compromise, they simply bring their 'truth' to the world by any means necessary.

This is not to say that extremism is a bad thing. In fact, there is a very real sense in which the world needs extremism; it is through their certainty that most change is brooked. However, it is most definitely a bad thing when the extremists begin to embody the majority opinion. In theory, the extremist voice should be tempered, and eventually defeated, by the cooler, more divested perspective of 'moral' society. However, in practice, things like mass-media and readily available military hardware have created a system in which those with conviction appear to be far and away more numerous than those without. This is truly an unfortunate state of affairs, as the absence of a moderate influence has reduced the public dialectic to a simple game of rhetorical (and frequently violent) bludgeoning.

P.S. Extremism may be inherently immoral, but there is a great deal of difficulty in pulling extremists from a group of those possessing healthy convictions. As such, one has to be very careful to avoid using extremist as another iteration of 'unfaithful' or 'illogical'.

Serial killers are not extremists. They are mentally ill.

Dictators are not extremists, since extremists are usually fighting for some cause, or idea. Dictators - may have started as extremists, but have since won the fight to achieve their goals, and usually aren't fighting for anything (other than to hold onto power).

Bombers are extremists who are taking their battle against the mainstream to its ultimate end.

-edited for grammar-

jfrazell wrote:
How does square with serial killers and dictators? The definition doesn't seem to fit. How about abortion clinic bombers (or inversely recruiting center bombers)?

Serial killers, broadly speaking, I would agree do not act in a fashion that we would generally agree as being moral. However from their personal perspective I would suggest that some would indeed think ( or possibly self delude I'll grant you) they are acting in a moral fashion, be it "cleansing the streets" or perhaps even from religious beliefs-- I'm sure that Behram thought he was acting quite correctly.

I can't think of a single dictator in history or the present ( Look ! I avoided the cheap and tiresome Bush jibe ! ) who didn't believe they were acting morally " for the greater good".

From certain perspectives abortion clinic bombers or recruiters of said are no more or less moral than the pilots of the Enola Gay or army recruitment adverts.

... And surely you're not going to claim that the advertising industry is an immoral cesspit of sleaze and....... and.... hmm... maybe you DO have a point !

So are they moral keezus?

reds8n wrote: In fact I would argue almost the opposite of "your" line : If a person acts with steadfast conviction and absolute faith in the justness of their cause then, even if it is only from their perspective, then they are acting morally, presumably more so than someone with a lesser sense of conviction in the cause.

I don't think so. most atrocities committed have been borne from the idea that a group or ideal is absolutely right and held with steadfast conviction. Like the man he kills his daughter because he feels she is not Muslim enough for him. Not trying to pick on Islam, but I just was reading up on honor killings so it was on my mind. Those guys feel absolutely justified in strangling their progeny until they are dead. I have trouble buying that as moral. Pol Pot was certain of the rightness of his actions. Killing doctors over the legality of abortion in cold blooded murder.

The absolute belief that ones self is the arbiter of absolute right and charged with judging others failures, whether it be an athiest who thinks all people who believe in the possibility of the spiritual are idiots or Jew that wants to wipe the Palestinians out, it leads to bad things.

There is a fundamental difference between believing that Jesus is the son of God and believing that Jesus picked only the white race to save and to oppress and eliminate all others.

jfrazell wrote:So are they moral keezus?

IMO, as I view serial killers to be mentally ill, I do not think that their mindset can be understood to be moral or immoral, as their motivations are completely different from normal individuals.

Dictators may or may not be moral. In the case of an enlightened despot, then the answer is yes. In the case of a tyrant, the answer is no.

As for suicide (or other types of) bombers, the only certainty is in their strength of conviction. I believe they are moral in their own minds, irrespective of what societal norms are.

I don't feel that those are moral either.

But then I wouldn't regard slaying all the Egyptian firstborn, drowning most of the earth or permitting terrible things to happen to your son as especially moral either.

I don't think it's immoral to eat meat but I'm not going to turn and claim that a vegan isn't moral because he/she doesn't eat meat.

Again we're going to keep coming back to how you think you can justify the actions. For example I've read theories that Roosevelt had been told/knew the Pearl habour attack and let it happen as he knew otherwise it would be nigh on impossible to get enough general support amongst the American public to join the war. Was that a moral act ? For the 3 thousand odd dead and their families I'd guess not, whilst I'm sure any military man knows they might well be called upon to lay down their life for their country they don't expect to be scarified. On the otehr hand how many more millions might/would have died if America hadn't entered the war ?

Or perhaps less people would have died in the war, but even more of Europe's people would have been "cleansed" after the last resistance fell.

I would say -- even if Rossevelt didn't know about the attack that his decisions caused the deaths of numerous people, but I would never for one moment ( beraing in mind all the otehr good he did) claim that he was not a moral man. But he was certain in his actions I think.

EDIT : quick linky

reds8n: ends justify the means?

On a side note, we were watching Hellboy 2, and my buddies and I figured that both the Forest King and Prince Nuada had their people's best interest at heart - but demonstrated a clear division in rationale.

Is it more honourable to uphold an agreement made in good faith, even if the other side reneges on their portion of the agreement out of ignorance (protect the innocent), or is it preferrable to break your word and forcibly take back that which is your right (and ensure your survival)?

keezus wrote:reds8n: ends justify the means?

Hmm... I guess that or a deity is the final argument of almost any moral extremity.

It's all relative. Being moral is defined, amongst other ways, as conforming to a code of right and wrong. The question then becomes one of "who sets this code?". Answer comes down to whether or not you belive that ther is a universal morality, and if so how in depth it is. If you don't believe in a universal morality, then that means everyone sets their own moral code, which is of course influenced by whatever forces have been at work in that persons life. A Christian as an individual has their own personal moral code, an idea of what is right and what is wrong. This moral code of theirs does not always "jive" 100% with that of their religion. We can be a part of a religion wihtout agreeing with it 100%, although some would call that herey and others would call it freedom of thought and using their mind that God (or Whomever) gave them. This all produces schism, which among other things produces new religions.

So the question really comes down, if you believe that there is no universal morality, to a question of your personal beliefs as an individual. Can an extremeist be moral? Of course they can, in their own eyes they are probably some of the only moral people on the planet, willing to sacrifice their place in society on the altar of their personal beliefs. In the eyes of others, with very different moral codes, they are the hieght of immorality.

What if, on the other hand, there is a universal morality? A universal code that dictates right and wrong to all of us on this planet? Somehting that we just inherently know, without societal programming? Well folks, if you have access to a copy of this universal code, I'd love to see it.

Grizgrin is correct with his "who sets this code" statement. This thread, and the thread about the morality of athiests is purely subjective, as everyone has differing ideas on morality. These ideas are shaped by the societies we live in, the people we meet, and our life experiences. Even if there was a universal moral code set down by God, this "perfect" code is still being interpretted and carried out by "imperfect" humans.

Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged"

The only way to decide what is moral or not, there must be a benchmark by which morality is measured - holding those hypothetical people "athiests / extremists" to "the decider's" standards of morality. This stance has the inherent problem of making the automatic assumption that the "decider" is automatically better than those being judged. Who's to say that the "decider's" version of morality is the "-the- most moral code"?

grizgrin wrote:It's all relative.

No, in Relativism it is all relative, but Relativism is philosophically/theologically weak position best abandoned after Philosophy 101.

grizgrin wrote:Being moral is defined, amongst other ways, as conforming to a code of right and wrong.

No, having a taxonomy of acceptable and unacceptable actions is ethics. That is why if you ever do any religious studies Christianity and Judaism are classified as Ethical Monotheistic religions. They have a written code (ethical) and believe in one god (monotheism).

grizgrin wrote:It's all relative. Being moral is defined, amongst other ways, as conforming to a code of right and wrong. The question then becomes one of "who sets this code?". Answer comes down to whether or not you belive that ther is a universal morality, and if so how in depth it is. If you don't believe in a universal morality, then that means everyone sets their own moral code, which is of course influenced by whatever forces have been at work in that persons life. A Christian as an individual has their own personal moral code, an idea of what is right and what is wrong. This moral code of theirs does not always "jive" 100% with that of their religion. We can be a part of a religion wihtout agreeing with it 100%, although some would call that herey and others would call it freedom of thought and using their mind that God (or Whomever) gave them. This all produces schism, which among other things produces new religions.

Well, it is all relative, to a point. People construct their own moral systems, but there are certain elements of consistency which cannot be ignored. This is especially true if one follows Wittgenstein (and, to some extent, Rorty) in the assumption that one cannot act upon rules outside of the system of accountability provided by the collective. For example, it is fully impossible to manifest a society in which the killing of members (without some mechanism for just cause) is accepted practice. In reality this is not all that important to realize, as in most cases ethical systems which violate such principles never gain sufficient traction to be considered anything beyond mass-delusion. Rather, most of the forces which serve to produce schism, as you call it, are truly mundane differences of terminology or emphasis. The Luther Reformation, for instance, did very little to modify the actual thrust of Catholic teaching; emphasizing instead a shift away from a centralized kind of dogmatic mandate. This made sense at the time as distance was making it more and more difficult to remain in effective contact with the papacy. It wasn't as though there was some great epiphany available to Lutherans which was otherwise somehow denied by Catholic dogma.

grizgrin wrote:
So the question really comes down, if you believe that there is no universal morality, to a question of your personal beliefs as an individual. Can an extremeist be moral? Of course they can, in their own eyes they are probably some of the only moral people on the planet, willing to sacrifice their place in society on the altar of their personal beliefs. In the eyes of others, with very different moral codes, they are the hieght of immorality.

What if, on the other hand, there is a universal morality? A universal code that dictates right and wrong to all of us on this planet? Somehting that we just inherently know, without societal programming? Well folks, if you have access to a copy of this universal code, I'd love to see it.

The thing is, we cannot exist without societal programming. Human's are social animals; without society we are not human (this is my own extension of Wittgenstein's point about rules I referenced above). As such, it is folly to try and look for some fully nascent, intrinsic behavior which would exist outside of interpersonal discourse. Rather, we must try to see the truth behind the individualized ethical narratives which inundate out world. More simply, we should look for what we have in common rather than focus on what we hold in opposition.

The opening question can’t produce any real answers because the terms used are far too vague. Right now ‘extremist’ is being used as a shorthand for the reactionary elements of various religious groups, particularly but not exclusively the violent elements, but it can just as easily be applied to a wide range of groups and people through history, many of whom took extreme positions that were ultimately proven superior to mainstream thinking. Just off the top of my head, Martin Luther could have been considered an extremist. So it really depends what you mean, the current bad guys of the day, or anyone that’s ever stepped outside the mainstream to challenge common beliefs?

Meanwhile ‘morality’ is generally defined as the standards of the community (distinct from ethics, the values of the individual). But often it means simply ‘good behaviour’.

Problem is, going by the concept of morality as the standards of the community; you’re left with something of a truism. Anyone who steps outside conventional beliefs is moving away from community morality, and is therefore no longer moral. But does that mean the person is wrong just because he disagrees with the majority? Of course not, as Ghandi said the truth remains the truth. Great things are accomplished by people who buck the trend. But there’s also countless people that were just plain wrong, were unlucky, or argued their cases badly, who led hard life and a death in obscurity with your cause forgotten. There’s also been a few who’ve decided their own personal truth is worth convincing twelve year olds to suicide bomb markets.

Ahtman: I'm not familiar with philosophy or religion as formal studies, so I'm not sure about your Capitalized Terms that evidently Mean Something Greater. Maybe I'll look them up sometime, but to be honest my reading list is already enough to kill. Prehaps you just see things different from me, but I do see it as all being relative. That's My point of view. Right and wrong is dependent upon frame of reference, which is personally determined (again, with influences form experiences in life and what you have done with them). The closer two frames of reference are to each other on a particular issue, the better those two people will, in general, get along on that issue. I don't know much about Philo 101 (that was longer ago than I care to remember, thanks), or Relativism,
however I DO know that just stating that someone else is wrong, and that you are right, and then calling their position (which, really, you are the only one who has been kind enough to claim for them) weak, has nothing to do with changing their ideas. In order to justify your remark there, you really needed, in my opinion, to have provided some body. Some backup. Some explaination.

As far as your commentary on taxonomy et all..., I think we are saying much of the same thing, actually. Having a "code of right and wrong", and having a "taxonomy of acceptable and unacceptable actions" sound very similar to me. They are both pretty binary without a lot of room for grey area, and I don't see much of a real difference at all between "code" and "taxonomy" in this context. The only difference I can see is in your further definitions of Ethical Monotheistic Religions, in which case the major differences are that I never addressed religion at all in the quote you took, and I never specified that the "code" I was talking about had to be written down.

So, to wit, overall it looks like our major differences are either semantic, or stem from you having an evident education in religion and or theology, therefore tending to stick ideas in specific pigeon holes. THat's certianly not a bad thing, and I am not disrespecting it. However, I think in your zeal to hole my ideas, you overlooked some similarities therein to some of the ideas you stated.

Dogma: I think most of the differences there go to your evident reading on religion, and semantics. It sounds like we are agreeing, in that you can contemplate morality all you want without taking societal programming into account, however any real system of morality as it applies to people will by nature have influence from the society of the individual generating the moral code.

grizgrin wrote:Ahtman: I'm not familiar with philosophy or religion as formal studies, so I'm not sure about your Capitalized Terms that evidently Mean Something Greater.

It doesn't mean something greater, it means what it means. Like how tree means tree.

grizgrin wrote:Maybe I'll look them up sometime, but to be honest my reading list is already enough to kill. Prehaps you just see things different from me, but I do see it as all being relative. That's My point of view. Right and wrong is dependent upon frame of reference, which is personally determined (again, with influences form experiences in life and what you have done with them).

So it's narcissism and/or solipsism ye believe in. It means you have to believe that there is actually a you that is seperate from everything else.

grizgrin wrote:The closer two frames of reference are to each other on a particular issue, the better those two people will, in general, get along on that issue.

Not necessarily, depends on the people. I'm sure you've heard "opposites attract".

grizgrin wrote:I don't know much about Philo 101 (that was longer ago than I care to remember, thanks), or Relativism,
however I DO know that just stating that someone else is wrong, and that you are right, and then calling their position (which, really, you are the only one who has been kind enough to claim for them) weak, has nothing to do with changing their ideas..

Who said my plan was to change anyones ideas? I'm not anyone's TA or Prof, I'm not going to waste to much time trying to go into detail over it. You just get a grade, pass or fail. Did I find it credible or not. It's also not my job to teach for free. I can drop a thing or two here but this isn't a class and I'm not up for tenure.

grizgrin wrote:As far as your commentary on taxonomy et all..., I think we are saying much of the same thing, actually. Having a "code of right and wrong", and having a "taxonomy of acceptable and unacceptable actions" sound very similar to me. They are both pretty binary without a lot of room for grey area

A list of things and dual things aren't the same thing. A grocery list and "0 1" Aren't similiar. A Taxonomy can lots of "gray areas". What does it mean to Honor Ones Father and Mother (Christianity) or to live Right Action (Buddhism). A binary has no room for gray. It is or it isn't, no in between. On/Off. Alive/Dead. Right/Wrong.

grizgrin wrote:and I don't see much of a real difference at all between "code" and "taxonomy" in this context. The only difference I can see is in your further definitions of Ethical Monotheistic Religions

It's not my definition. If someone describes photosynthesis would you call it "their definition" as if because it was described by someone else it somehow made it not true or somehow debatable? It is the technical classification.

grizgrin wrote:in which case the major differences are that I never addressed religion at all in the quote you took, and I never specified that the "code" I was talking about had to be written down.

I didn't say you brought it up. It is an example. Hard to use an example without talking about something. You can't just say "here is where this is used in context:___________________________________".

grizgrin wrote:So, to wit, overall it looks like our major differences are either semantic, or stem from you having an evident education in religion and or theology, therefore tending to stick ideas in specific pigeon holes.

I'd like to say this is the first time that I've heard someone argue that being educated makes you small minded, but I've seen Fox News.

Ahtman: I'm not saying I have a problem with educated people. If that's how you choose to read what I wrote, so be it. 40k is FULL of people who seem to be able to read almost anything into a group of words on paper. Sorry you chose that route.
/
Man, that post is just awe-inspiring. You apear to be just spoiling for a "fight". Let me help you out in that endeavor as best I can. You ready? Here it comes........