1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

21 Shot dead at Virginia Tech

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by texas_jack, Apr 16, 2007.

  1. zjpj83

    zjpj83 Senior member

    Messages:
    9,452
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Moral evil requires a satisfactory compulsion, such as a sadist might enjoy. I don't know the private aspects of this shooter so I can't presume anything of that sorts.
    I don't know why he would need to have motivation, like a sadist, in order for it to be morally evil. Indeed, I would argue that if he did it for no reason at all - that is, if he had no "compulsion" but simply lacked all sense of morality - then that too would be evil. Since there can be no explanation or justification for killing dozens of innocent people, I don't see how you can call it anything other than morally evil.
     
  2. Buickguy

    Buickguy Senior member

    Messages:
    238
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Moral evil requires a satisfactory compulsion, such as a sadist might enjoy.

    I don't know the private aspects of this shooter so I can't presume anything of that sorts.



    Looking at it from the Randian Objectivist point of view, the initiation of force against another individual is the definition of immoral.
     
  3. Stazy

    Stazy Senior member

    Messages:
    7,194
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Location:
    Toronto
    Now you're just making $hit up. Quit while you're behind.

    I support this message [​IMG]
     
  4. whnay.

    whnay. Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    9,420
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    If your instant visceral reaction is to call anyone who shoots for some vague reason or other, evil then fine.
    What kind of shovel are you using to dig that hole?
     
  5. LabelKing

    LabelKing Senior member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    I don't know why he would need to have motivation, like a sadist, in order for it to be morally evil.

    Indeed, I would argue that if he did it for no reason at all - that is, if he had no "compulsion" but simply lacked all sense of morality - then that too would be evil.

    Since there can be no explanation or justification for killing dozens of innocent people, I don't see how you can call it anything other than morally evil.


    Did he do it for the intentional purposes of some say, deviant sexual satisfaction; or perhaps, the pure joy of death?

    That is what I mean by satisfaction, not some satisfation stemming from ignorance.
     
  6. skalogre

    skalogre Senior member

    Messages:
    6,324
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    I support this message [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  7. LabelKing

    LabelKing Senior member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    I support this message [​IMG]

    All of you just don't wish to face the possible fact that this shooter was likely as normal as anyone; he fell from the precipice as easily as anyone would.
     
  8. Manton

    Manton Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    Say that to Leibniz.

    Produce an actual quote from Leibniz that is germain to this discussion, and I will be more impressed.

    My visceral reaction is to call a spade a spade, and not to indulge in non-sensical rationalizations.
     
  9. skalogre

    skalogre Senior member

    Messages:
    6,324
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    I am sure there is plenty of information here that will be useful, no?

    [​IMG]
     
  10. whnay.

    whnay. Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    9,420
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    All of you just don't wish to face the possible fact that this shooter was likely as normal as anyone; he fell from the precipice as easily as anyone would.
    Um no, I'm not going to make that leap of moral equivalence with myself or anyone on this board. A college student is not ignorant of the moral evil of killing innocent human beings. It's about as black and white as it gets.
     
  11. Stazy

    Stazy Senior member

    Messages:
    7,194
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Location:
    Toronto
    I am sure there is plenty of information here that will be useful, no?

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    I could go on, but you get the idea.
     
  12. Manton

    Manton Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    All of you just don't wish to face the possible fact that this shooter was likely as normal as anyone; he fell from the precipice as easily as anyone would.

    Speaking only for myself, I can face it, but I believe it is untrue. All the evidence goes the other way.

    What I object to is not so much your stated desire to shock our bourgeoise complacency, but the phony ethical distinction you conjured out of thin air seemingly to support an ill considered prior statement. You would have been better off just going back and editing that old post.

    No moral serious philosopher denies the importance of volition; the man who simply snaps and commits a crime is less culpable that man who thinks every step through and derives a lifetime of pleasure fom his misdeeds. But to say that mass murder is not evil if not savored and enjoyed is flatly false.
     
  13. LSeca

    LSeca Senior member

    Messages:
    1,255
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle
    Now you're just making $hit up. Quit while you're behind.

    He actually does this frequently, unfortunately, he always needs the last word so we should all ignore him as he is trying to take over this thread like many others.
     
  14. eg1

    eg1 Senior member

    Messages:
    5,601
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Location:
    Burlington, ON
    Produce an actual quote from Leibniz that is germain to this discussion, and I will be more impressed.

    What has Michael Jackson's brother got to do with anything?

    Oh -- more damn homophones! Never mind ... [​IMG]

    Seriously, though, if you define evil as that which is inimical to life, then this man and his actions certainly qualify.
     
  15. LabelKing

    LabelKing Senior member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    Speaking only for myself, I can face it, but I believe it is untrue. All the evidence goes the other way. What I object to is not so much your stated desire to shock our bourgeoise complacency, but the phony ethical distinction you conjured out of thin air seemingly to support an ill considered prior statement. You would have been better off just going back and editing that old post. No moral serious philosopher denies the importance of volition; the man who simply snaps and commits a crime is less culpable that man who thinks every step through and derives a lifetime of pleasure fom his misdeeds. But to say that mass murder is not evil if not savored and enjoyed is flatly false.
    Presuming that indeed, this shooter was acting out of some deranged fidelity to his girlfriend, then the moral equivalance, its neccesary compulsion, was not morally evil, given the reasoning behind the rampage was not to shoot simply for the pleasure of shooting. Therein, I would not make the distinction that this was a morally evil act, only a physically evil one. I was not saying this was not an evil act. If you will read my previous statements, I first identify that I have a problem with calling people who commit certain acts Evil--with a Capital E as if evil was all there is to it. Then some people get defensive about it and so I have to explain; and thus this categorical assumption of a moral evil versus a physical evil is a tangetial flow. But I believe the issue is: All of you can't see yourself doing something irrationally violent.
     
  16. skalogre

    skalogre Senior member

    Messages:
    6,324
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    [​IMG]

    This thread has been officially turdified!

    [​IMG]
     
  17. LabelKing

    LabelKing Senior member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    Fine, I'm not going to argue anymore with you people who seem to take anything at face value and refuses to overcome some sort of a collective common-place moral obligation to deem violent acts Evil, as if Evil were some sort of a becoming color.

    While this was indeed, a tragic event all your mawkish sentiments do nothing to diminish the unfortunate acts that happened however much you offer condolences.
     
  18. LabelKing

    LabelKing Senior member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    Um no, I'm not going to make that leap of moral equivalence with myself or anyone on this board. A college student is not ignorant of the moral evil of killing innocent human beings. It's about as black and white as it gets.
    Haven't you all seen "Straw Dogs" or "El Ángel Exterminador"?
     
  19. j

    j Senior member Admin

    Messages:
    14,914
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Good, I was just going to ask you to stay out of this thread from now on.
     
  20. Buickguy

    Buickguy Senior member

    Messages:
    238
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Presuming that indeed, this shooter was acting out of some deranged fidelity to his girlfriend, then the moral equivalance, its neccesary compulsion, was not morally evil, given the reasoning behind the rampage was not to shoot simply for the pleasure of shooting. Therein, I would not make the distinction that this was a morally evil act, only a physically evil one. I was not saying this was not an evil act. If you will read my previous statements, I first identify that I have a problem with calling people who commit certain acts Evil--with a Capital E as if evil was all there is to it. Then some people get defensive about it and so I have to explain; and thus this categorical assumption of a moral evil versus a physical evil is a tangetial flow. But I believe the question is: Do you easily make statements over the insanity or evil-ness of someone?
    This was clearly an initiation of force, deadly force. We could go so far as to question how innocent any of the victims were in their personal lives as well as questioning the motivations of the shooter. This is a case where Randian philosophy serves very well. Were any of the killed or wounded threatening the shooter in any way? I would say no. Definitely not in a deadly way. This is clearly not a case of the use of defensive force. Defensive force is unequivocally moral. It is the only moral use of force open to the individual. That leaves retaliatory force and initiation of force. Retaliatory force is the purview of governments. When an individual is wronged, courts decide what retaliatory force is justified and the weight of the government is behind it. Governments may also retaliate against other governments in cases when nations are wronged. The initiation of force is immoral, whether employed by an individual or a government. Evil, in the shortest definition is committing immoral acts. Whether or not the shooter felt he was retaliating or he choose to initiate force, his act was immoral and therefore evil.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by