Hitting A Woman?

[Rairun]

I accept that some people may find it morally right (or thrilling, fun, whatever) to kill. If he or she acts on it, he brings undeniable pain and suffering to the victim and their family. He takes it upon himself to assert that someone else is not fit to live. Who the hell is he to do that? What makes his moral decision superior to that of his victim?

Nothing makes it superior. I don't even understand what you really mean by that. One decision is only superior to another when we define a framework to work with. The question "who the hell is he to do that?" is a bit like asking, "who the hell is an earthquake to kill several thousands of people?" The earthquake just goes ahead and destroys cities. A murderer goes ahead kills people. They don't have to be anyone special.

People will suffer, and they can't help it. Why should that ever be seen as acceptable? Why should someone who feels it's ok to hurt others actually be in the right in any way? Why should their moral choice be the one that is allowed to win out over the other?

I'm not saying it should be considered acceptable. That's a whole different question. I'd try to stop people from harming others because I don't like needless human suffering. I'd fight so that kind of moral choice isn't allowed to win--not because it's wrong, but because I don't like it. That's what it comes down to: power, influence, politics.

Skeptic must feel strongly about the importance of "honor", so much so that he belittles those whom he doesn't consider manly enough. It's a kind of social pressure. I have no sympathy for that kind of value. In fact, I actively fight against it. I fight against the notion that we are not allowed to be true to ourselves when we are harming no one, the notion that men should be men and women should be women because that's just who they are.

I don't oppose that sorry notion because I'm in the right, whatever that means. I oppose it because I don't want to live in a world dominated by it. It makes me happy that we are winning. Sometimes it feels like there's still a long way to go, but I figure we must be doing something right when I hear people whining about how we are all "brainwashed by radical feminists."

 

[CptColumbo]

When I meet a woman who has bruises on her face I can only think, "great she doesn't know how to listen."

Seriously, I was brought up that you should never hit a girl/woman. This led to me getting beaten up quite regularly at school and by my sister.

My dad finally told me when I was 11, "if a girl is hitting you for no good reason, warn them three times that you will hit them back if they don't stop." Later in the week, my sister (who is two years older than me) started punching and kicking me over the TV remote. I warned her three times and she didn't stop. I then punched her right across the jaw. She hit the ground and began screaming and crying. I ran outside and hid behind the hedges. My dad came out and asked if I had warned her, and I said I had. He then said, "I just spent $5,000 straightening her teeth. If you're going to hit her, don't aim for the mouth."

I haven't hit a female since then. I put a hole in a wall once, but never had to punch a fellow human being.

 

[Dragoonster]

A fair point. As I think about it, I'm finding myself questioning aspects of what I'm thinking and feeling.

But I can't find equivocation between the mental anguish of someone who wants to kill, but is not allowed to, and someone who wants to live, and is not allowed to. Maybe just saying "pain and suffering" was too generic.

The murderer who is not allowed to kill is upset about it. But the person who didn't want to die had their entire life snuffed out, and it also brought extreme mourning and pain to the untold number of friends and family members around him. I don't think that it's equal. I don't think that his point of view is equally valid at that point.

But I wasn't trying to speak to universal morals as much as to say that I felt I could demonstrate that it was possible to have moral values without the backdrop of religion involved. I'm weighing the suffering of the one against the other, and making a choice. So it is admittedly a philosophy.

I totally agree with you.

And also agree with Rairun, morality only means anything when there's competition between 2+ people, and then it comes down to who can enforce theirs on the other.

That said I've been underestimating the effect of argument on this. My own morals have been tweaked by good arguments, so it's not like all that matters is my/anyone's opinion, since it can be influenced even by non-Universal (big U) claims. I also agree with you on religion not being the only basis for developing a decent personal morality. Even though/if morality is mostly opinion, those opinions can develop a lot of consistency and logic after the initial emotion-based axioms.

One thing I strongly disagree with Skeptic on is that we should assume that Aristotle or others are more right in their morals merely because they were more astute or influential or spent more time thinking deeply on the stuff. Not only because I think morals are subjective--That so many moral philosophers are in disagreement with others makes me think it's unlikely any has come upon any great truths.

 

[Rairun]

Morals are not decided by the universe. They are decided by societies. And there are many moral answers that seem to be universal.

Healing the sick is one of them. Distinguishing right and wrong another.

I agree that societies inculcate rules in people's heads, but that doesn't mean that everyone ends up believing in those rules. You could say that this minority is wrong as dictated by society, and you would be right, but that doesn't mean much in philosophical terms. Sure, in political terms, the minority is likely to be oppressed, but that's because society is a powerful institution, not because it invented morals.

Anyway, "healing the sick" is a little vague, and it doesn't seem like a universal value to me. A lot of people in the US don't believe in healing the sick. They think you should be able to pay for your own healthcare, and if you can't, tough luck. "Distinguishing right and wrong" is another very vague statement. After reading my posts, would you say that I can do that? You can definitely see that I have my own values, and that I can tell what I want and what I don't want, but I deny the existence of right and wrong!

You might say that an individual's values don't matter, since you are speaking of society as a whole, but think of it this way: society isn't a single unified entity. It's composed of several groups in different positions of power. I really don't think it's productive to claim universality just because the majority happens to hold those views.

 

[Rairun]

That said I've been underestimating the effect of argument on this. My own morals have been tweaked by good arguments, so it's not like all that matters is my/anyone's opinion, since it can be influenced even by non-Universal (big U) claims

Yeah, this is the case for me too. I can and have changed my mind on a number of issues. I've only been ignoring that fact because it's tangential to the point I was trying to make.

 

[Roboramma]

If you told me, "look, I don't care what Einstein and Newton did, I want to reach my own scientific conclusions", I'd say you are missing out on something rather important. The same applies to ethics and morality, to how to live -- not just to how the physical universe works.

Which is fine, but if I said, "why do you think that einstein was correct?" You could do a great deal more than simply say, "because he was really smart."
You could offer me a great deal of evidence.
Can you do the same for Aristotle's views on morality?

Another issue is that if you said, "I know that a black hole of such and such mass, spinning in this way, will behave in such and such a way." I could ask you to demonstrate that your conclusions actually do in fact flow from general relativity.
But if I ask you, as KingMerv has, to demonstrate how your conclusion that it's right to punch someone (with the intent of knocking him unconcious) simply because he threw a drink in your face, came from aristotle, can you do that?

Finally, Aristotle has been dead for a very long time, and moral philosophy has moved on without him. We don't go to him for physics or biology anymore, why should we look to him, rather than those who have built on his work, for moral philosophy?

 

[Skeptic]

So is there a difference between ethics and morality?

Mortality usually means the correct way to behave. Ethics usually means the theory or study of the correct way to behave. But the distinction is small, and in practice many people use "ethics" and "morals" interchangeably.

 

[Eyeron]

Is this a spelling mistake?

Mortality usually means the correct way to behave. Ethics usually means the theory or study of the correct way to behave. But the distinction is small, and in practice many people use "ethics" and "morals" interchangeably.

 

[arthwollipot]

I really don't get the whole deal with "cowardice". Seems to me that self-preservation is a virtue, not a flaw.

 

[Belz...]

If you told me, "look, I don't care what Einstein and Newton did, I want to reach my own scientific conclusions", I'd say you are missing out on something rather important. The same applies to ethics and morality, to how to live -- not just to how the physical universe works.

Taking into account the works of the great men and women of history is one thing. Defering to them as absolute guies of morality and refusing to give your own point of view is another.

For instance, Einstein constructed the theory of relativity, but it's evolved quite a bit since then, and even things Einstein thought were wrong were proven right; so clearly I can't trust the man's opinions as absolute truth.

My experience is, when one figures out morality "independently", they usually ends up with some bland run-of-the-mill version of utilitarianism, a stripped-down J. S. Mill, with all of the flaws of Mill's theory and none of the elegance or wit of his understanding -- much like those who have some "original" physical theory usually end up with something rather silly.

There simply is no comparison between Newman, Aristotle, and the rest and the average person's (and I include myself) ability to think deeply about morality and ethics -- much like there is no comparison between most people's ability to understand Physics and Einstein's ability to do the same.

We each have our own morality, whether you like it or not. I was simply asking you what YOU thought, independent of other people...

 

[chillzero]

When you see one, get them to post on the thread and we will both find out.

Sure. Hi. I'm chillzero, and I'm a survivor of spousal abuse.

I still think that the most logical answer is that your husband wasn't "hitting a woman." He was hitting you, an individual like everyone else. It's a horrible thing, and I'm sorry it happened. I don't think anyone here thinks abuse is okay.

Well, here's the thing.
One man's abuse is another man's difficult, bitch of a wife who dares to 'put her hands' on him.

My ex would agree with you completely that he had been hitting me, and not just some random woman. His point would be that in his opinion I behaved in such a manner that I drove him to the point of fury so much that there was no choice for him but to punch me ... kick me in the back and stomach ... drag me around by my hair ... hold me to the wall by my throat ....

He'd even say that I had instigated it, and I will agree that yes, indeed, I laid my hand on him first on a few occasions..... and by 'laid my hand on him first' I mean that I placed my hands on his shoulders to try and push him away just a step or two after having him scream and spittle in my face for at least 20 minutes while my back was against a wall and I had nowhere else to retreat to.

I think a better question would be, "would it be okay for you to have reacted if you could?" I think it would.

Funny ... he thought so too.
On one occasion he thought so so much that he tried to break my fingers because I was trying to use my mobile phone surruptitiously to call for help. I had dared (about an hour beforehand) to try and push past him to get out of the door when he refused to let me leave ... but ... you know ... that's ok - he's just 'defending' himself against a clearly aggressive and angry person... right?

We had been part of a similar discussion to this thread early in our relationship, and I had vocally agreed with many people here that the gender of a person is irrelevant, people should avoid violence, unless personally threatened. I still believe that. However, this one single comment of mine was used again and again and again throughout my marriage to justify the beatings I took when the fact that I disagreed with him would escalate from me disagreeing, to us arguing, to us shouting, to him shouting and screaming while I cowered, to him beating the daylights out of me for being such a difficult bitch to live with - why couldn't I ever just do what I was told?

So, I'm not a perpetual victim. I'll never, ever allow any man to place a finger on me again - he won't even get the chance to try and justify it. I spent many years rebuilding myself, and yes, I still have a way to go, and I have friends who have helped me on the way. I'm not a perpetual victim, and I agree with what slingblade said that to many women, the sign of a man "is to note which men feel no need to "test their manhood" because they know this is a stupid, caveman sort of way to think, and which men seem to think their manhoods are real and need defending."
(I am not so clear on the 'stats' she quoted, just to be clear.)

Women can be violent too, and it's not fair to expect a male victim to shut up and take it. No one should be expected to do that.

I absolutely agree with this.
But ...this topic is not as black and white as some seem to believe.

 

[Morrigan]

When you see one, get them to post on the thread and we will both find out.

How is slingblade not such a person, pray tell?

Seriously, what the hell is your problem.

 

[Rairun]

Chillzero, I'm sorry you had to go through all those things.

I realize you were quoting me just as a starting point to your own post, but I just want to make it clear that I wasn't talking about situations like yours. I don't think violence is a valid response to any sort of nagging (perceived or real). Saying someone "made" you hit them is pretty much the same as blaming rape victims for "dressing provocatively." It's absurd.

If someone were blocking your way and trapping you, I think it'd fine to push them away. I don't think it'd be okay to punch, kick or injure them unless they became even more violent. And if someone punched me, I wouldn't strike them back; I would back away, and I'd only react if they kept trying to hit me. My only point was that it's unfair to expect actual victims not to react. I wasn't supporting people who are abusive and then play the victim.

 

[jimbob]

If you told me, "look, I don't care what Einstein and Newton did, I want to reach my own scientific conclusions", I'd say you are missing out on something rather important. The same applies to ethics and morality, to how to live -- not just to how the physical universe works.

Taking into account the works of the great men and women of history is one thing. Defering to them as absolute guies of morality and refusing to give your own point of view is another.

For instance, Einstein constructed the theory of relativity, but it's evolved quite a bit since then, and even things Einstein thought were wrong were proven right; so clearly I can't trust the man's opinions as absolute truth.

My experience is, when one figures out morality "independently", they usually ends up with some bland run-of-the-mill version of utilitarianism, a stripped-down J. S. Mill, with all of the flaws of Mill's theory and none of the elegance or wit of his understanding -- much like those who have some "original" physical theory usually end up with something rather silly.

There simply is no comparison between Newman, Aristotle, and the rest and the average person's (and I include myself) ability to think deeply about morality and ethics -- much like there is no comparison between most people's ability to understand Physics and Einstein's ability to do the same.

We each have our own morality, whether you like it or not. I was simply asking you what YOU thought, independent of other people...

Agree entirely with what you are saying...

Except that this isn't even a proper "Appeal to Authority"

Skeptic has stated that Aristotle didn't have anything to say about this situation, but this didn't stop the appeal to authority:

If you told me, "look, I don't care what Einstein and Newton did, I want to reach my own scientific conclusions", I'd say you are missing out on something rather important. The same applies to ethics and morality, to how to live -- not just to how the physical universe works.

My experience is, when one figures out morality "independently", they usually ends up with some bland run-of-the-mill version of utilitarianism, a stripped-down J. S. Mill, with all of the flaws of Mill's theory and none of the elegance or wit of his understanding -- much like those who have some "original" physical theory usually end up with something rather silly.

There simply is no comparison between Newman, Aristotle, and the rest and the average person's (and I include myself) ability to think deeply about morality and ethics -- much like there is no comparison between most people's ability to understand Physics and Einstein's ability to do the same.

But aren't you just making it up, just in a slightly similar style to someone who thought that slavery was "natural"?

I think, as Cardinal Newman said, that in many cases to think correctly is to think like Aristotle. By which Newman did not mean to agree with Aristotle on everything, but to think through things like him. Needless to say Aristotle has no example about people beating each other up in a bar. But what he said is still applicable, if you try to think like him.

Anyway I disagree with your contention.

Ethics is based on values, which is fundamentally based on emotions. Everyone has these, and with application can derive their own ethical principles. Science, on the other hand is difficult and does require study, as you have to fit with about 400-years of observations and the universe.

What is the word for someone who appeals to particular writings as the ultimate moral authority, and then "interprets" what they "should" have said? A priest?

 

[chillzero]

Chillzero, I'm sorry you had to go through all those things.

I realize you were quoting me just as a starting point to your own post, but I just want to make it clear that I wasn't talking about situations like yours. I don't think violence is a valid response to any sort of nagging (perceived or real). Saying someone "made" you hit them is pretty much the same as blaming rape victims for "dressing provocatively." It's absurd.

If someone were blocking your way and trapping you, I think it'd fine to push them away. I don't think it'd be okay to punch, kick or injure them unless they became even more violent.

I understood your point, and thank you for understanding that I was not attacking you in my post. A few other posters have really skewed ideas about what is and is not appropriate, and your words helped me formulate what was frustrating me, into words.

And if someone punched me, I wouldn't strike them back; I would back away, and I'd only react if they kept trying to hit me.

I can say the same .... now.
I twice made the mistake of fighting back after being punched, however. 49% fury/embarrassment, 50% blind panic, 1% thoughts of it helping my survival. Realising I was getting a much harder beating for ... 'justifying' ... his need to 'defend himself from me' taught me that the third time would be likely to kill me. Now, I'm not saying I didn't hurt him - I know I can fight. But I fought not with the sole intention to hurt, but to attempt to put distance between us. I fought back to try and make him back way, to just try and get enough of those few precious seconds together that I could get a clear run to the door and open it and get through it before he could trap me in the jamb. Those few seconds you need can be so much longer than you'd realise, and when you've infuriated a violent person to that extent, getting caught on the wrong side of the door is not pretty, and not worth repeat attempts in the next fight.

My only point was that it's unfair to expect actual victims not to react. I wasn't supporting people who are abusive and then play the victim.

I completely agree, and I understood that. I apologise profusely if anyone reads my quotes of your words and misinterprets that.

 

[RockNroll]

I'll go with all the posters who said "in order to protect myself if attacked". That also applies to men, hermaphrodites, etc.

And to those insecure little souls who feel the need to adhere to some irrational, hilarious stereotypical concept of "teh manliness", I heartily recommend taking up some full-contact martial arts/fighting sports. Seriously. Regularly testing your mettle in sporting combat against other men will make you a lot less desperate to prove yourself to others.

It might even make you realize that "getting in touch with your feelings" or taking care of your appearance are in no way an impediment to being a badass when it matters. Which is good, because such notions are idiotic and best reserved for sissies

 

[rustypouch]

Of course it's wrong!

Women are frail, delicate creatures who aren't as strong or violent as men. They also can't be held accountable for their actions, nor held to the same standards as men.

 

[slingblade]

Chill...

I went through much the same: being cornered by an angry (and in our case drunk or high) man, him screaming, spittle flying, getting in my face, backing me up until I was against the wall... And if I tried to get away or move him, that's when I'd get slapped. Then backhanded. Shoved. Punched in the gut. Kicked.

Sorry. I guess some people like to ask certain questions as if no one is going to reply, "I'm a woman, and I was abused, so I"m not likely to think it's ever okay to hit anyone, but you're kind of pushing my buttons when you specify 'women,' and the survivor in me has to respond so you know there are real people reading your questions and certain responses ought to be expected."

And stuff.

Hugs again, Chill.


ETA: Rusty....what?

 

[Roboramma]

I really don't get the whole deal with "cowardice". Seems to me that self-preservation is a virtue, not a flaw.

I agree, but this sort of hits on the point Dr A made earlier: two virtues can come into conflict.

When self-preservation comes into conflict with some other virtue, (like protecting others) then the thinking person will try to sort out what the best (or, from their moral framework, most virtuous) course of actions is. Sometimes it means putting yourself at risk.

Of course, that's difficult. It's much easier to simply say that when self-preservation comes into conflict with some other virtue, self-preservation always loses. Otherwise you are a coward. Once you've got that sort of absolutist morality, you don't have to think about it too much anymore.

It's even easier, when one virtue comes into conflict with another, to simply go with your prior bias, rather than trying to work out the best course of action. Because, as Dr A pointed out, in that sort of situation it's always possible to rationalize your chosen course of action as the best one.

 

[qayak]

Seriously, what the hell is your problem.

It was the utter stupidity of this post I was responding to.

(Originally posted by Slingblade) My test of manhood is to note which men feel no need to "test their manhood" because they know this is a stupid, caveman sort of way to think, and which men seem to think their manhoods are real and need defending. I consider the former group to be critical thinkers, and the latter group to be ignorant and immature.

Is it mere coincidence that the men who think they need to hit people to prove they are manly are often also the men who routinely abuse women?