State has got monopoly on violence in certain situations where people generally think it is needed. So yeah there is a great number of situations the for the state to use violence "ethically". — Wimbledon

I guess in a practical standard, the question becomes a little different. I think for the state violence becomes efficient, which in a casual sense relates to ethics, but I still don't necessarily agree that its the right "choice" per say.

I'm seeing some parallels between art and arcitechture. Or maybe language, architecture can be used sometimes to describe something, to say something, like a monument of some sort.

If I had to coin a term, I'd say something along the lines of monumental culture, or physical language, or something like that.

Ew...Try this one on for size:

Oh wait I can't upload photos. Too bad, you would've been amazed.

I guess he means that it doesn't make sense to say “it is impossible for the same thing to be and not be at the same time” if time is unreal. — Amalac

Ah, I see. Huh, that's pretty clever.

If we treat ethics as ethical ‘norms’ , then ethics, as justice, is itself inherently violent. — Joshs

That's interesting. Care to elaborate?

but contradictions are meaningless if time is unreal (re definition of contradiction). — Agent Smith

Could you elaborate on that?

2. I can't think a contradiction: Try thinking of an apple that's (all) red and not (all) red. You cant. — Agent Smith

Then how did you come up with the contradiction?

:up:

Oops. I'll warrant that I'm not exactly uh, current with the ethical systems we use, but I definitely could've done some research.

Don't worry, I will :naughty:
(just kidding.)

Sure if the woman was hitting his man out of pleasure, that could be determined as violence. However, what if the man was hitting the woman, for her pleasure?

How come? Isn't a subject being forced to do something against their will through physical force? It's violence, and, like all violence, unethical. — Tzeentch

Well for one the wife didn't force the man through physical force. Nor did she have knowledge that the man's will was being violated. He was violated of his own accord. If this is violence, either the definition would have to change, or it would have to become contextual.

Violence is categorically unethical. While in some cases its use may be understandable, that does not change its nature, namely to force someone to act in accordance to one's own desires through physical force. If that is not unethical, nothing is. — Tzeentch

However this denotes violence to be act in accordance to one's own desires through physical force. Therefore if you name that previous example as violence, you would do well to admit that it is malleable/contextual?

In that case, the third person's desires must be taken into account. — Tzeentch

Could I not be considered as the third person? e.g My wife wants me to engage in some kinky stuff, but deep down in my heart I find it disgusting.

Assuming there's no third-party whose will is going to be violated, yes. It is not violence. — Tzeentch

This seems contradictory; So in essence I must conform to the wills of others, even if my own desire is at risk?

As you can see, the forcing of one's desires upon another is a key ingredient. In the case of BDSM type situations another's will is not being violated. — Tzeentch

So as long as I engage in physical force on the behalf of another's pleasure, or in accordance to someone else's desire, it would not be considered as violence?

Isn't that just calculus?

The question was should you exercise minimal force even if your life is at risk, but I came to the conclusion earlier that yeah you probably should.

The More You Know.

ALL robots pass the Turing test. — Agent Smith

Really?! Wow, I didn't know that. Dang.

Wouldn't it just apply to robots who haven't passed the Turing exam?

Then...In my belief I don't think Asimovs' rules fail. They just apply to who their applicable too.

Apparently no. — Agent Smith

Then perhaps we could say: for those robots who have passed the Turing exam, they are now exempt from Asimov's laws of robotics? As in, reserve the rule for those who do act robotically.

Of course what is up for debate is what these ethical principles are, and I've just shared a rather bold one; violence is categorically unethical. — Tzeentch

In the event that violence is pleasurable, physically, would it remain categorically unethical?

I mean specifically to protect the innocent from violence, to counter one act of violence with another. — NOS4A2

I would say that's fine.

But I also believe violent reciprocation is often warranted. Sometimes it just isn’t right that someone should get away with certain acts without a comeuppance. — NOS4A2

Warranted maybe, but should you reciprocate?

Violence is ethical if it is used to counter unjust violence. I would even say it is ethical when used in the service of justice, for instance, with the death penalty. So an ethical violence would have to be a just violence. — NOS4A2

By counter, do you mean reciprocate?

The principle of justice is to act morally, ethically, to be righteous to an extent. I'm not sure if reciprocating death is just.

Asimov's 3rd Law fails for the simple reason that implicit in it is the provision that robots can protect themselves against other robots but, the catch is, robots won't be able to tell the difference between robots (AI) and humans (robots/AI pass the Turing test). — Agent Smith

An AI (artificial intelligence) that passes the Turing test is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from a human. — Agent Smith

If a robot isn't distinguishable from a human, would it still be subjected to Asimov's three laws of robotics?

Self-preservation is a futile endeavor, and to sacrifice one's spiritual integrity for it is not an act worth celebrating, but such is my view. I'll yield in a situation of self-defense it would not be easy. I'm not sure if I could do it. — Tzeentch

I don't deny that life is not meant to be kept, but am a little skeptical on how the love of ones life impedes or incapacitate one's spiritual integrity.

If one believes violence can turn into a right whenever it suits one's desires, then we've entered the typical slippery slope that ends at "might makes right". — Tzeentch

Slippery slope fallacy?

its use must not be regarded as a victory (ethical), but as a personal defeat (unethical). — Tzeentch

Should I not celebrate my self preservation? Or is the will to live a desire?

Yeah, I know. In retrospect, I was just searching for something to argue about.

I think the responses would also be better if you limit the question to a certain ethical theory. "I violence always unethical according to Kantian ethics?" — Tobias

But then it'd be too easy! :joke:

No, I see what you're saying. Perhaps in the question of ethical reform, or societal reform, are acts of injury permissible? (i.e riots, revolutions)

Responsive, proportional violence sufficient to reduce further harms to aggressors and/or victims is ethical. Protection from violence and reduction of violence, respectively. — 180 Proof

I suppose then it wouldn't necessarily be violence, but a physical act of control. However, violence is often brutal. Sometimes justifiable, yet not necessarily ethical, which would illustrate a sort of conflict between the two. I guess maybe a more accurate question would be, is the act of inflicting injury upon someone else ethical?

"is violence ethical?" Is actually an incomplete question. Firstly because the answer is rather straight forward, in no ethical system is violence per se ethical, all frown upon it, but then the thornier question becomes: when is violence considered ethical. — Tobias

How could we complete/reform the question?

Therefore my argument would be that the default position is that violence is unethical, but there might be cases in which it may be ethical to use force. — Tobias

I see no harm in that.

I don't believe that violence is ever an ethical choice. But I think that the "defense of reason" position may be one of the strongest. — Pantagruel

Well it certainly is understandable.

"His method consisted in forcing the insane to perform the most difficult tasks of farming, in using them as beasts of burden, as servants, in reducing them to an ultimate obedience with a barrage of blows at the least act of revolt." — Pantagruel

What a picturesque scenario. Almost romantic, in a weird way.

Violence should not be one's opening option, however, once it is there, one should be fully conversant with it and use it as efficiently as possible, minimizing suffering. — Book273

Minimize suffering? Someone's dead!

That is the suggestion, as an historical analysis. Violence as enforcing reason. It is kind of chilling. — Pantagruel

Yeah, despite the dire setting, I wouldn't necessarily agree that violence is an ethical response.

The only time violence is condoned is when people who resort to it do so out of desperation. What is necessary can neither be good nor evil. — Agent Smith

I agree with that.

So yes, if that means someone has to die, they are going to die as efficiently as I can make it happen. If I can end the threat without death, great. If I am not sure, oh well, efficiency wins. — Book273

I don't know if I entirely agree...

what is antithetical to reason, madness. I guess in those terms, violence is seen as being ethical when it is applied to unreason:

...the age of reason confined. It confined the debauched, spendthrift fathers, prodigal sons, blasphemers, men who "seek to undo themselves," libertines. And through these parallels, these strange complicities, the age sketched the profile of its own experience of unreason. — Pantagruel

Huh. So violence is like a cure/response to madness, if I understand correctly?

I believe just about any violence will be declared "ethical" IF and WHENEVER large nation interests are at stake. This goes for pretty much any country. "War is diplomacy conducted by other methods." — Bitter Crank

Sometimes, I feel like we should just enact a global presidential boxing match. Let them fight their own problems.

Self-defence - but with minimal force. — Tom Storm

Hm. Suppose you are in a lethal situation with another dude, would you still follow this?