Breivik: The Moral Dilemma

[Zoice]

I think there's some confusion here. No one is disagreeing that "might makes possible". But possible isn't the same as right.

Yet the definition of "right" is always decided by those with the possibilities, i.e., might.

From a legal standpoint, "right" is whatever the law of the land says it is, correct? But in order for laws to be binding, there must be a credible deterrent against breaking the law. There must in fact be a credible threat of retaliation from any group for it to even be recognized as an authority capable of issuing laws. Any legal rights require the credible possibility of retaliation in order to be valid and binding, or they are just wet paper, hence my argument that might makes right.

Same is true from a moral standpoint - moral "right" is also usually decided by those with the means to impose sanctions upon violators. The moral codes of modern societies, while widespread and commonplace now, were once actually all written by a relatively small number of people, who had the means to convince enough followers of their validity to gain power to physically enforce their moral codes.

Hence I fail to see there being any objective "right", moral or legal, outside codes of law and faith that the might of a few makes.

Now as to subjective "right", that's a whole different matter.

Legally, yes, "right" is defined by the mighty (the governing body with all the pointy sticks, rocks, and guns), but I don't know of anyone that seriously considers the law of any nation to be 100% just or "right". Traditions are also generally derived from the opinions of the mighty few. But, again, neither tradition nor the law of the land are all that important to me.

"But in order for laws to be binding, there must be a credible deterrent against breaking the law. There must in fact be a credible threat of retaliation from any group for it to even be recognized as an authority capable of issuing laws. Any legal rights require the credible possibility of retaliation in order to be valid and binding, or they are just wet paper, hence my argument that might makes right."

Again, "might makes possible", not "might makes right". Without any might it can be hard to enforce laws, but the only thing might brings to the equation is how enforced the laws are, not whether they are just or not.

What's important is the effect that moral commandments actually have on people, which is completely unaffected by how mighty you are. It doesn't matter if you have guns or not, prohibition against gay marriage is an example of a harmful law.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Yet the definition of "right" is always decided by those with the possibilities, i.e., might.

From a legal standpoint, "right" is whatever the law of the land says it is, correct? But in order for laws to be binding, there must be a credible deterrent against breaking the law. There must in fact be a credible threat of retaliation from any group for it to even be recognized as an authority capable of issuing laws. Any legal rights require the credible possibility of retaliation in order to be valid and binding, or they are just wet paper, hence my argument that might makes right.

Same is true from a moral standpoint - moral "right" is also usually decided by those with the means to impose sanctions upon violators. The moral codes of modern societies, while widespread and commonplace now, were once actually all written by a relatively small number of people, who had the means to convince enough followers of their validity to gain power to physically enforce their moral codes.

Hence I fail to see there being any objective "right", moral or legal, outside codes of law and faith that the might of a few makes.

Now as to subjective "right", that's a whole different matter.

Legally, yes, "right" is defined by the mighty (the governing body with all the pointy sticks, rocks, and guns), but I don't know of anyone that seriously considers the law of any nation to be 100% just or "right". Traditions are also generally derived from the opinions of the mighty few. But, again, neither tradition nor the law of the land are all that important to me.

"But in order for laws to be binding, there must be a credible deterrent against breaking the law. There must in fact be a credible threat of retaliation from any group for it to even be recognized as an authority capable of issuing laws. Any legal rights require the credible possibility of retaliation in order to be valid and binding, or they are just wet paper, hence my argument that might makes right."

Again, "might makes possible", not "might makes right". Without any might it can be hard to enforce laws, but the only thing might brings to the equation is how enforced the laws are, not whether they are just or not.

What's important is the effect that moral commandments actually have on people, which is completely unaffected by how mighty you are. It doesn't matter if you have guns or not, prohibition against gay marriage is an example of a harmful law.

I agree that legal "right" oftentimes conflicts with the moral "right". However, morality systems are also really but a product of the mighty of ages past, derelict laws preserved in tradition. They shape the perception of justice in society at large, so a law that may be considered just in one society will not necessarily be deemed such in another. There is no objective justice, because the very concept is shaped by tradition and social convention, which is in turn the residual influence of the laws of past ages.

If a society spent enough time under a repressive regime of the mighty that imposed unjust laws on them, it would eventually come to accept them as just, having no other recourse. Even when the regime collapsed, it would still affect the populations perception of justice, of right and wrong, for generations to come. This influence becomes ingrained in the collective tradition that determines what the future generations will see as right.

[Zoice]

Legally, yes, "right" is defined by the mighty (the governing body with all the pointy sticks, rocks, and guns), but I don't know of anyone that seriously considers the law of any nation to be 100% just or "right". Traditions are also generally derived from the opinions of the mighty few. But, again, neither tradition nor the law of the land are all that important to me.

"But in order for laws to be binding, there must be a credible deterrent against breaking the law. There must in fact be a credible threat of retaliation from any group for it to even be recognized as an authority capable of issuing laws. Any legal rights require the credible possibility of retaliation in order to be valid and binding, or they are just wet paper, hence my argument that might makes right."

Again, "might makes possible", not "might makes right". Without any might it can be hard to enforce laws, but the only thing might brings to the equation is how enforced the laws are, not whether they are just or not.

What's important is the effect that moral commandments actually have on people, which is completely unaffected by how mighty you are. It doesn't matter if you have guns or not, prohibition against gay marriage is an example of a harmful law.

I agree that legal "right" oftentimes conflicts with the moral "right". However, morality systems are also really but a product of the mighty of ages past, derelict laws preserved in tradition. They shape the perception of justice in society at large, so a law that may be considered just in one society will not necessarily be deemed such in another. There is no objective justice, because the very concept is shaped by tradition and social convention, which is in turn the residual influence of the laws of past ages.

If a society spent enough time under a repressive regime of the mighty that imposed unjust laws on them, it would eventually come to accept them as just, having no other recourse. Even when the regime collapsed, it would still affect the populations perception of justice, of right and wrong, for generations to come. This influence becomes ingrained in the collective tradition that determines what the future generations will see as right.

Yes, tradition and culture is malleable and people can be misled by them. Many morality systems are ultimately arbitrary, but that does not mean all are. This is where secular humanism and rational thought ride in to save the day, the fallibility of human perception and the influence of the mighty and tradition doesn't mean that all moralities are equivalent.

[Gravlen]

This guy probably lives better in prison than he did on the outside.

He does not. He was living quite comfortably on the outside. He made a lot of money before he went on the rampage.

Living in a 2mX3m concrete box off of shit food with no social interaction is fucking paradise Iffy.

Is he not living in a 3 room suite with video games, TV, a kitchen, a computer, a typewriter, etc.?

No, he's not. He's living in a 7 m² cell, and he's got access to two other cells of similar size.

[Imperializt Russia]

Living in a 2mX3m concrete box off of shit food with no social interaction is fucking paradise Iffy.

Are you talking about a stereotypical gamer's basement?

As someone who genuinely lives that life, it is abysmal.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

I agree that legal "right" oftentimes conflicts with the moral "right". However, morality systems are also really but a product of the mighty of ages past, derelict laws preserved in tradition. They shape the perception of justice in society at large, so a law that may be considered just in one society will not necessarily be deemed such in another. There is no objective justice, because the very concept is shaped by tradition and social convention, which is in turn the residual influence of the laws of past ages.

If a society spent enough time under a repressive regime of the mighty that imposed unjust laws on them, it would eventually come to accept them as just, having no other recourse. Even when the regime collapsed, it would still affect the populations perception of justice, of right and wrong, for generations to come. This influence becomes ingrained in the collective tradition that determines what the future generations will see as right.

Yes, tradition and culture is malleable and people can be misled by them. Many morality systems are ultimately arbitrary, but that does not mean all are. This is where secular humanism and rational thought ride in to save the day, the fallibility of human perception and the influence of the mighty and tradition doesn't mean that all moralities are equivalent.

You seem to have a rather idealistic outlook on secular humanism and rationality.

Humans overall aren't rational creatures, but ones driven primarily by instinct and emotion, fickle and easily swayed by those who know how. Rationality may be a good idea for a leader to have, but it matters little to the common rabble who are generally too ignorant and preoccupied with the trivialities of their little lives to make any use of it. They will enthusiastically consume whatever "opium for the masses" their masters will feed them, embrace even the craziest delusions, given sufficient indoctrination, and feel none the worse about it. Problems really begin when the leaders themselves begin to sincerely believe in what they feed to the masses.

Secularism in turn has removed one of the most powerful tools in the arsenal of the mighty to control and unify the masses - religion. People in general have an inherent psychological need to believe in something, to invest faith in something. Faith gives them a sense of purpose and stability, and more importantly, unity. A lot of problems with our society of atomized individuals would disappear if people just had some common, undisputed authority to turn to for answers for questions about the purpose of their life, right and wrong, and such, so religion isn't strictly a one-sided tool that benefits only the ruling class. In the absence of religion, the rational and secular folks of today instead invest their faith in ideology. Promise of heaven in return for behaving in this life has been replaced by promise of heaven here in this world, whatever the creator's idea of earthly heaven be.

Fact is, I don't see secular humanism and rationalism as any better moral sources than any other out there. In fact they are even less efficient than some others, disregarding the inherently-irrational human nature and their deep-seated need for faith, for something to give them a purpose.

---

Personally I tend to look at morality from a purely pragmatic perspective. Anything that benefits my people, my tribe (and by extension me) is righteous and anything that doesn't is not. That benefit does not need to be secular, rational, or moral by conventional standards, as long as it benefits the group as whole and ensure their continued survival and well-being (which is the very purpose why morality evolved).

To draw parallels with the earlier discussion, the amount of suffering inflicted upon an enemy of the group in the process of disposing of him is utterly irrelevant as far as I am concerned, as long as the threat is neutralized. Infliction of suffering may be right, if it helps to set an example and terrify others into refraining from similar actions, or it may be wrong if the time, effort and resources invested into making the subject's life miserable accomplish nothing and could better be spent elsewhere, but it is neither right nor wrong in itself, ever. It just is.

[Libertine States of America]

I'm struggling to find the genius.

Also, the fact he has a "TV, PlayStation and a computer without Internet connection," and he's whining about human rights violations just shows he's an entitled prat.

Ironic, considering he also complained about his parents 'spoiling' him, which also makes him a huge hypocrite.

[Ifreann]

I'm struggling to find the genius.

Also, the fact he has a "TV, PlayStation and a computer without Internet connection," and he's whining about human rights violations just shows he's an entitled prat.

Ironic, considering he also complained about his parents 'spoiling' him, which also makes him a huge hypocrite.

The depths some people will sink to.

[Libertine States of America]

Yes, tradition and culture is malleable and people can be misled by them. Many morality systems are ultimately arbitrary, but that does not mean all are. This is where secular humanism and rational thought ride in to save the day, the fallibility of human perception and the influence of the mighty and tradition doesn't mean that all moralities are equivalent.

You seem to have a rather idealistic outlook on secular humanism and rationality.

Humans overall aren't rational creatures, but ones driven primarily by instinct and emotion, fickle and easily swayed by those who know how. Rationality may be a good idea for a leader to have, but it matters little to the common rabble who are generally too ignorant and preoccupied with the trivialities of their little lives to make any use of it. They will enthusiastically consume whatever "opium for the masses" their masters will feed them, embrace even the craziest delusions, given sufficient indoctrination, and feel none the worse about it. Problems really begin when the leaders themselves begin to sincerely believe in what they feed to the masses.

Secularism in turn has removed one of the most powerful tools in the arsenal of the mighty to control and unify the masses - religion. People in general have an inherent psychological need to believe in something, to invest faith in something. Faith gives them a sense of purpose and stability, and more importantly, unity. A lot of problems with our society of atomized individuals would disappear if people just had some common, undisputed authority to turn to for answers for questions about the purpose of their life, right and wrong, and such, so religion isn't strictly a one-sided tool that benefits only the ruling class. In the absence of religion, the rational and secular folks of today instead invest their faith in ideology. Promise of heaven in return for behaving in this life has been replaced by promise of heaven here in this world, whatever the creator's idea of earthly heaven be.

Fact is, I don't see secular humanism and rationalism as any better moral sources than any other out there. In fact they are even less efficient than some others, disregarding the inherently-irrational human nature and their deep-seated need for faith, for something to give them a purpose.

---

Personally I tend to look at morality from a purely pragmatic perspective. Anything that benefits my people, my tribe (and by extension me) is righteous and anything that doesn't is not. That benefit does not need to be secular, rational, or moral by conventional standards, as long as it benefits the group as whole and ensure their continued survival and well-being (which is the very purpose why morality evolved).

To draw parallels with the earlier discussion, the amount of suffering inflicted upon an enemy of the group in the process of disposing of him is utterly irrelevant as far as I am concerned, as long as the threat is neutralized. Infliction of suffering may be right, if it helps to set an example and terrify others into refraining from similar actions, or it may be wrong if the time, effort and resources invested into making the subject's life miserable accomplish nothing and could better be spent elsewhere, but it is neither right nor wrong in itself, ever. It just is.

The Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, South Korea, and Japan are doing fine without a majority-religious population, so your point is invalid.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

You seem to have a rather idealistic outlook on secular humanism and rationality.

Humans overall aren't rational creatures, but ones driven primarily by instinct and emotion, fickle and easily swayed by those who know how. Rationality may be a good idea for a leader to have, but it matters little to the common rabble who are generally too ignorant and preoccupied with the trivialities of their little lives to make any use of it. They will enthusiastically consume whatever "opium for the masses" their masters will feed them, embrace even the craziest delusions, given sufficient indoctrination, and feel none the worse about it. Problems really begin when the leaders themselves begin to sincerely believe in what they feed to the masses.

Secularism in turn has removed one of the most powerful tools in the arsenal of the mighty to control and unify the masses - religion. People in general have an inherent psychological need to believe in something, to invest faith in something. Faith gives them a sense of purpose and stability, and more importantly, unity. A lot of problems with our society of atomized individuals would disappear if people just had some common, undisputed authority to turn to for answers for questions about the purpose of their life, right and wrong, and such, so religion isn't strictly a one-sided tool that benefits only the ruling class. In the absence of religion, the rational and secular folks of today instead invest their faith in ideology. Promise of heaven in return for behaving in this life has been replaced by promise of heaven here in this world, whatever the creator's idea of earthly heaven be.

Fact is, I don't see secular humanism and rationalism as any better moral sources than any other out there. In fact they are even less efficient than some others, disregarding the inherently-irrational human nature and their deep-seated need for faith, for something to give them a purpose.

---

Personally I tend to look at morality from a purely pragmatic perspective. Anything that benefits my people, my tribe (and by extension me) is righteous and anything that doesn't is not. That benefit does not need to be secular, rational, or moral by conventional standards, as long as it benefits the group as whole and ensure their continued survival and well-being (which is the very purpose why morality evolved).

To draw parallels with the earlier discussion, the amount of suffering inflicted upon an enemy of the group in the process of disposing of him is utterly irrelevant as far as I am concerned, as long as the threat is neutralized. Infliction of suffering may be right, if it helps to set an example and terrify others into refraining from similar actions, or it may be wrong if the time, effort and resources invested into making the subject's life miserable accomplish nothing and could better be spent elsewhere, but it is neither right nor wrong in itself, ever. It just is.

The Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, South Korea, and Japan are doing fine without a majority-religious population, so your point is invalid.

Not necessarily. A lack of formal religious or ideological affiliation does not imply a lack of desire to believe, but rather a lack of anything that would appeal to the majority.

[Gravlen]

Are you talking about a stereotypical gamer's basement?

As someone who genuinely lives that life, it is abysmal.

You mean the life of a gamer? And/or living in a 2mx3m concrete box?

[Modern Skaaneland]

This whole story is mostly a bit of fun to me. Finally something interesting happens in this age.

[Vassenor]

Are you talking about a stereotypical gamer's basement?

As someone who genuinely lives that life, it is abysmal.

#studentlife

[Modern Skaaneland]

Are they releasing him anytime soon?

[Vassenor]

Are they releasing him anytime soon?

He's still got over a decade left on his sentence.

[Modern Skaaneland]

WHAT?!

[Vassenor]

WHAT?!

Murder in Norway carries an automatic twenty-one year minimum sentence.

[Modern Skaaneland]

You should release him.

[Alvecia]

You should release him.

No. You do it.

[Modern Skaaneland]

Well, it's worth a try. Where is he at?

[Ostroeuropa]

If he calls his isolating inhumane, then the Norwegian government should just have him transferred to general prison population.

Ideally with all the Arabic prisoners.

You seem keen to prove Brevik right about violent islamists.

[Vassenor]

You should release him.

Why? He was tried and convicted of his crimes, and he is serving the sentence handed to him.

[Gauthier]

If he calls his isolating inhumane, then the Norwegian government should just have him transferred to general prison population.

Ideally with all the Arabic prisoners.

You seem keen to prove Brevik right about violent islamists.

If he was right every single Norwegian Muslim in the country would be in prison.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You should release him.

Why? He was tried and convicted of his crimes, and he is serving the sentence handed to him.

Cuz he's a hero, obviously. Only cultural marxists disagree.

[Lautrec-]

If he calls his isolating inhumane, then the Norwegian government should just have him transferred to general prison population.

Ideally with all the Arabic prisoners.

Implying that Arabic prisoners would kill/torture him for his beliefs.

This is what Breivik would say.