I've been told I need to "grow up" from my black and white sense of morality. Why is binary morality inherently immature? Can one have a grey sense of morality and still be moral, or at that point does right/wrong cease to exist and everything is permissible?
There are exceptions and situations with different factors, so of course a black and white sense of morality (which is arbitrary non the less and things you deem "good" could easily be harmful).
And it's immature because only children show a lack of capability to go beyond "black/white".
I think most people would argue about children having black and white morality. They have their own morality that is less influenced from outer world thus it cannot be described with our terms. Comparing them with animals would be more coherent.
t. some hisfag with zero idea about philosophy
Because it doesn't fit with the real world. Its not descriptive, its you prescribing your own moral system. Basically, you can be right, but so can people who are the opposite of you. There's no real way to prove you're right.
It isn't a sense of everything is permissible, just that sometimes you can't judge whether it is or isn't. Some things are clearly good. Some are clearly bad. That doesn't change, at least for me. It's just that not everything falls into those two camps. The shades of grey go all the way to black and white on both extremes.
Then I don't understand how
>Basically, you can be right, but so can people who are the opposite of you. There's no real way to prove you're right.
Wouldn't be the same with a grey morality vs. black and white.
>Why is binary morality inherently immature?
because you system of binarities prevent the hedonism of other people who listen to you (or on people you have power).
the problem is that what you allow and forbid does not jive with what other people like and dislike, so they tell you that it is your fault, that you do not respect their hedonism.
In my perspective, intentionally and significantly harming others with no benefit for anyone but yourself is bad, whereas doing something for benefit of all is good
its a moral system based mostly around interaction and interpersonal relationships I suppose, but im OK with that
Wasn't the same poster but i think its pretty clear.
>There's no real way to prove you're right.
This is not the same as putting morality on a spectrum.
If you want to put something on a spectrum you need to in my opinion 'objectify' that moral question first and that is proven again and against to be impossible.
If you could (you can argue that morality is biological hence goal based or something for example) then you can put it there somewhere and it becomes a question of information where it sits in relation to other questions.
This is of course my out of ass opinion.
I feel like you're addressing something in your head. For context, the issue came up over a discussion concerning putting aged Nazis on trial. I was staunchly "yes, those bastards must pay, even if they're 90+ years old" and my friends were more about "it depends on the life they've lived since then/whether they're a good person/feel guilty about their actions ..." which baffled me. Because I have a binary morality and they'll excuse even Nazis. But not Bill Cosby.
to a practical extent though, what's the point sometimes? if they've lived a reformed life, what reason is there really to punish at this point? seems more like vindictiveness/revenge than an actually morally influenced decision.
I'm not saying I still don't want to make them pay, but I feel like my motivations for feeling that are more emotionally influenced than morally.
I mean its common sense for me but i don't think its 'clearly good, clearly bad'. You wrote it yourself, its hard to judge.
Without being edgy, harming others with no benefit for anyone but yourself is pretty decent strategy for survival in very dangerous environment.
Valid. To be more clear, I meant more in instances where the benefit to yourself is entirely unnecessary. In a Battle Royale environment, I wouldn't consider killing for your own survival clearly bad, since it's you or them anyway. But if you're living a perfectly comfortable life and you kill someone for more money or something, I consider that "black"
But yeah, there's so many individual situations that I'd say even with that belief of ends of the spectrum it isn't really worth applying often because every case sort of has to be judged individually for me to fit it in either side or in the grey, you can't really sort based on categories or anything.
What purpose does punishing them serve at this point? Satisfying some arbitrary sense of justice? I certainly can't see how it would help anyone, or make the society better in some way.
Grey is just a metaphor of saying that, supposing you already know enough significant consequence of a decision, adding up all the 'good' (as white color) and 'bad' (as black color) influences of the decision would end up with a grey color and not purely of one end. This should apply regardless of which ideology or priority you have to construct a criteria to identify 'goodness' and 'badness' of any particular influence.
I abhor Nazism and could never personally forgive someone involved in the execution of the Holocaust. I still stand by my point that enacting justice this late in the game is more vindictive than anything. I would like to see them suffer, I'm simply honest enough to admit to myself that that primarily stems from an emotional response.
Nothing to do with sympathizing with nazis, you goddamn retard. The main purpose of the justice system should be societal benefit, not serving some arbitrary and error prone sense of justice.
>I abhor Nazism and could never personally forgive someone involved in the execution of the Holocaust.
While I don't agree with simply murdering people the way the NAZI government did, I sure as hell support evicting/deporting groups, like the Jews, that refuse to assimilate and intentionally disrupt your society for their own personal gain. That's essentially what the Jews have done in the U.S..
The U.S.is slowly being inundated with non-whites that will eventually replace the white culture that created it, and it will eventually become just another non-white shithole.
Mass deportation would resolve that issue.
They already did escape justice and life a full life without ever facing it. Having them live the rest of their lives in the hospital of a prison instead of some nursing home or another hospital won't change that.
Well if you want to be on topic, the holocaust was a post facto rationalization to justify punishing high ranking Germans whose only real crime was being too successful at conquering Europe. Punishing the little Nazis is just 7 decades of drinking the cool aid.
The truth is, no one cared that Germany was killing their own Jews, gays, romani. Nobody cared that Germany killed polish Jews, gays, romani. Nobody cared that Germany killed Dutch Jews, gays, romani.
That is not why people fought back.
Try this, mate:
Be binary in the sense that Good and Bad exist and are absolute, but allow for a gray zone called "understanding".
I.E.: Murder is bad. Absolute.
Murdering your rapist is bad, but the cause can be understood, which deserves sympathy but not necessarily absolution.
Look to history. Lots of great civilizations were created by exiled criminals. It is a fairly modern stance to believe that exile is not sufficient punishment.
The notion that hard work eradicates wrongs is more valuable to society than the inevitability of the blind sledgehammer of retribution misnamed as justice.
Hard work not busy work.
If you base your morality on what is good for society then it is easy to imagine a person who is so good for society that you can easily overlook even the most egregious crimes.
Check out how the Jews wanted Lord janner - major Jewish Brit politician - let off a paedo investigation because of his age
Then check out Janner campaign that old Nazis should be prosecuted
Fuck off schlomo
>it is easy to imagine a person who is so good for society that you can easily overlook even the most egregious crimes.
Really? I have a hard time imagining someone could really work at a soup kitchen enough to make up for the crimes against humanity committed at the concentration camps. I mean, since you're a Nazi sympathizer, you probably don't think anything that went on at those places was so bad anyway.
So somebody goes out, rapes and murders, maybe even eats a few children. But he goes into hiding, helps build a couple of schools, gets married, raises a family. And so everything is OK.
Happiness is the greatest punishment?
I wouldn't say it's less influenced, they're just taught a naive version. Their cartoons, games, books (pretty much any entertainment medium) leads them to seeing a world of "friendlies" v. "baddies". Didn't you play soldiers as a kid?
Anon, let's imagine a hypothetical here. Fritz was an unrepentant Nazi. He personally ran a death camp, and actively killed, raped, and maimed Jews, communists, Roma, gays, etc. However, as the war was closing, he managed to flee to Argentina, and has lived there ever since.
Now, he's in his 90s, infirm, probably has only one or two years left to his life. What purpose does locking him up accomplish? He's already lived an entire life after Nazism, so trying to say that "crime never pays" rings hollow in this instance. He already won. Any prosecution of him at this point is just pettiness.
To give a message that you can't get away from your war crimes even if you go far away and time passes on.
They are still tracking down Rwandan genocide leaders and killers. You show no remorse to your victims, the law will show no remorse either. Justice has no expiry date.