Do completely personal beliefs matter?

[General Soontir Fel]

By completely personal, I mean beliefs that a person has, but that no one else can know about from his words or actions.

Suppose we have someone who isn't a racist, but whose friends and family are. In order to avoid alienating them, he acts like he's a racist. When they hurl racist abuse at someone, he joins in. Like them, he buys racist books, joins racist organizations, and votes for racist candidates. No one except himself can tell that he doesn't think other races are inferior.

Question 1. Is such a person in any way morally superior to an actual racist?

Question 2. If your answer to question 1 is no, here's an altered scenario: now, it's not the person's family that's the reason he acts like a racist, it's his government. If he admits his views, he's risking his job, property, freedom, and maybe his life. Is he morally superior to actual racists?

Question 3. If your answers to questions 1 and 2 were no and yes, respectively... where do you draw the line?

[Dominus Atheos]

Question 3. If your answers to questions 1 and 2 were no and yes, respectively... where do you draw the line?

If he stops acting racist in scenario one, all he loses are friends. (racist friends, at that) He can always make new, non-racist friends. But if he doesn't pretend to be racist in scenario two, he loses things that he cannot replace. That's the line.

[slebetman]

When they hurl racist abuse at someone, he joins in. Like them, he buys racist books, joins racist organizations, and votes for racist candidates.

I draw the line at this. I'll be lenient and allow him to throw racist comments once in a while just to fit in. It's one thing to condone <insert bad behavior> by not doing anything. It's still bad but understandable in this situation. But to actively participate in it is something else completely.

[Tahlan]

Take your first scenario, and change the action from "racisim" to "murder." Is someone who commits murder in order to fit in, say in order to fit into a gang, not a murderer, even though he believes murder is wrong? Of course he is a murderer.

Likewise, someone who participates in racist activities, regardless of his privately held beliefs, is a racist. His very actions condemn him.

So your answer to question 1 is no, he is not morally superior.

Likewise, in answer to question 2, regardless what he loses, he is not morally superior. Murder is murder. Racism is racism.

[K. A. Pital]

No, they matter not. Either speak out, act, or no one even knows that you held such beliefs.

Therefore, no, they don't matter.

[Rye]

If beliefs exist that have no bearing on your actions or statements they are meaningless. They'd need to impact on either of those in some way to affect any real world issues to be of any merit.

The first scenario has him actively supporting the racist elements of his society in an attempt to fit in, when he's not even under any true duress. The second scenario has him under serious duress, though if the situation presented itself where he could do the right thing and didn't, he'd be a coward and his beliefs would still be meaningless. As bad as an actual racist in both if the outcomes are the same, he was just in a more difficult situation in the second one.

[R. U. Serious]

Question 1. Is such a person in any way morally superior to an actual racist?

You could make the argument that he is morally inferior, as he actively takes part in everything. He knows what the right thing to do would be, yet for reasons of entirely personal benefit he continues to do the wrong things. And knowing that it's wrong, he probably should feel more empathy towards the victims (compared to a racist who might see the victims as "subhuman"), so he potentially overcomes more empathy to hurt those people.

Question 2.[...]it's his government.[...] Is he morally superior to actual racists?

Are we talking about a democratic government - which would mean that it is really a large part of society+the government.
I think his intentions and motivations for behaviour play a part in whether he is morally superior or inferior to racists. Does he merely try to survive, and would he help suppressed people if there was a good chance to get away with it? Or is he tring to excel in this system, doing whatever is deemed appropiate/necessary to be viewed as "successful" in the society?
I am not trying to imply that intentions alone should be taken to base moral judgements on, but after the actual deeds and consequences, the intentions and opportunities play also a role (at least in the way of which deeds and consequences were [perceived as] possible or probable).Of course intentions alone don't count. If you're "investing" into an immoral system to gain influence to change it from "within", you are making a gamble - if you never actually get around to acting on/bringing about change, you loose the gamble.

From the little information you gave, it seems like he is trying to "do well" in that system, doing whatever it requires, and he doesn't have any intentions/goals that goes above his own personal benefit, so I don't see it much different than the evalution in Q1.

[Darth Wong]

Any utilitarian ethics system is based on objective outcomes, and all of the professional ethics systems are utilitarian. It's really only religious people who think that subjective beliefs have any ethical weight at all.

Honestly, this is like asking if it's OK to be a Nazi death camp guard as long as you secretly think that what you're doing is wrong.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Any utilitarian ethics system is based on objective outcomes, and all of the professional ethics systems are utilitarian. It's really only religious people who think that subjective beliefs have any ethical weight at all.

Honestly, this is like asking if it's OK to be a Nazi death camp guard as long as you secretly think that what you're doing is wrong.

It's hard trying to get people to understand this, since a great many are brought up to believe the set-in-stone codes of religious texts that are immutable; however many may break certain rules and enforce others firmly when it suits them.

[General Soontir Fel]

Likewise, in answer to question 2, regardless what he loses, he is not morally superior. Murder is murder. Racism is racism.

I was with you until then. Regardless of what he loses? So killing in self-defense (or in defense of others) is also murder?

From the little information you gave, it seems like he is trying to "do well" in that system, doing whatever it requires, and he doesn't have any intentions/goals that goes above his own personal benefit, so I don't see it much different than the evalution in Q1.

What I meant was that he values his personal well-being more than doing the right thing, and the second scenario presents more severe threats to that well-being. He's selfish and a coward--the question asked if there's any difference between that and really being a racist.

Honestly, this is like asking if it's OK to be a Nazi death camp guard as long as you secretly think that what you're doing is wrong.

I didn't claim that such behavior is OK. But there are different degrees of evil, and I was asking if one was worse than the other.

How about reversing the scenario? Suppose someone really is a racist, but doesn't let anyone know in any way. Is he morally inferior to a truly tolerant person?

[Lord Zentei]

So let's see if I understand the situation:

Person A is hurling racist abuse and, in general, participating in and condoning racist behaviour. He really beleives what he does and says is right and acceptable.

Person B is hurling racist abuse and, in general, participating in and condoning racist behaviour. He does not beleive what he does and says is right and acceptable, but does it anyway to fit in.



My assessment: both cause objective harm to others. Their victims couldn't distinguish them if they tried. The difference between them is that B is a coward and a hypocrite.

Of course, one might argue that B might act differently in a different situation. However, that is immaterial, since he is not in such a situation, and what use is ethics if you don't act on it? Moreover, for all we know, A might act differently if convinced of the fact that what he is doing is wrong, even were he in the same situation. The uselessness of B's concience is established, the uselessness of A's concience is not.

See: if subjective evaluations of intent and motivation are applicable, then that cuts both ways.

[Tahlan]

Likewise, in answer to question 2, regardless what he loses, he is not morally superior. Murder is murder. Racism is racism.

I was with you until then. Regardless of what he loses? So killing in self-defense (or in defense of others) is also murder?

The definition of murder is: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Murder

Self-defense, by definition then, is not murder. There is no unlawful killing of a person, and there is especially no malice aforethought.

[Kittie Rose]

Doesn't it just make him worse for doing something he knows is wrong?

[Dominus Atheos]

Likewise, in answer to question 2, regardless what he loses, he is not morally superior. Murder is murder. Racism is racism.

I was with you until then. Regardless of what he loses? So killing in self-defense (or in defense of others) is also murder?

The definition of murder is: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Murder

Self-defense, by definition then, is not murder. There is no unlawful killing of a person, and there is especially no malice aforethought.

But there was no malicious aforethought. He only did it because if he didn't, he would have been imprisoned. In a way, it was self defense, and therefore he is more moral (or less immoral) then someone who did it because he thought the other person actually deserved to die.

[Darth Wong]

But there was no malicious aforethought. He only did it because if he didn't, he would have been imprisoned.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who plans to kill someone and then carries out this plan is not guilty of having any "malice aforethought" if he had a compelling self-interest in doing so? Are you aware that by this tortured logic, a mobster who murders a witness in order to keep himself out of prison is not acting with malice aforethought?

In a way, it was self defense, and therefore he is more moral (or less immoral) then someone who did it because he thought the other person actually deserved to die.

See above.

[Dominus Atheos]

But there was no malicious aforethought. He only did it because if he didn't, he would have been imprisoned.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who plans to kill someone and then carries out this plan is not guilty of having any "malice aforethought" if he had a compelling self-interest in doing so? Are you aware that by this tortured logic, a mobster who murders a witness in order to keep himself out of prison is not acting with malice aforethought?

Of course that's murder, because it falls under the first criteria Tranan mentioned: It's unlawful. But in the OPs example, it's not unlawful. Everything Person B does is ordered by his government. It's just like how we executed the heads of the concentration camps, but not the little guys who got drafted and coincidently got assigned to be the one who threw the switch to turn on the gas chambers, despite the fact the the switch-thrower killed far more people then the commandant did.

[Darth Wong]

But there was no malicious aforethought. He only did it because if he didn't, he would have been imprisoned.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who plans to kill someone and then carries out this plan is not guilty of having any "malice aforethought" if he had a compelling self-interest in doing so? Are you aware that by this tortured logic, a mobster who murders a witness in order to keep himself out of prison is not acting with malice aforethought?

Of course that's murder, because it falls under the first criteria Tranan mentioned: It's unlawful.

Don't be an evasive fuckwad. You claimed that if someone does it to avoid imprisonment, than this is "no malicious aforethought". I challenged that logic. Don't change the subject to legalism.

[Dominus Atheos]

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who plans to kill someone and then carries out this plan is not guilty of having any "malice aforethought" if he had a compelling self-interest in doing so? Are you aware that by this tortured logic, a mobster who murders a witness in order to keep himself out of prison is not acting with malice aforethought?

Of course that's murder, because it falls under the first criteria Tranan mentioned: It's unlawful.

Don't be an evasive fuckwad. You claimed that if someone does it to avoid imprisonment, than this is "no malicious aforethought". I challenged that logic. Don't change the subject to legalism.

It's not malicious aforethought. In your example, the mobster did murder someone, but may very well have done it without any malice towards the person.

[Darth Wong]

It's not malicious aforethought. In your example, the mobster did murder someone, but may very well have done it without any malice towards the person.

What the fuck does "malice" mean in your world, moron? In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first definition is a desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another person. If the person intentionally kills someone, that's fucking injury, isn't it? Are you saying that there is no malice in deliberately harming someone as long as you don't personally dislike the guy? By this definition, psychopaths who treat others as mere objects and care not at all for their feelings have no malice.

[Nova Andromeda]

By completely personal, I mean beliefs that a person has, but that no one else can know about from his words or actions.

Suppose we have someone who isn't a racist, but whose friends and family are. In order to avoid alienating them, he acts like he's a racist. When they hurl racist abuse at someone, he joins in. Like them, he buys racist books, joins racist organizations, and votes for racist candidates. No one except himself can tell that he doesn't think other races are inferior.

Question 1. Is such a person in any way morally superior to an actual racist?

Question 2. If your answer to question 1 is no, here's an altered scenario: now, it's not the person's family that's the reason he acts like a racist, it's his government. If he admits his views, he's risking his job, property, freedom, and maybe his life. Is he morally superior to actual racists?

Question 3. If your answers to questions 1 and 2 were no and yes, respectively... where do you draw the line?

-I'd consider this person significantly less immoral than the 'true believers' since they presumably would change their behavior as soon as the opprotunity presented itself. However, they are still facilitators which should be punished for giving aid and comfort to the immoral actions mentioned. If they get in the way of people trying to overcome those immoral actions they should also be prepared for the fate of mercenaries on the wrong side of a fight. The amount of sympathy I'd have for them after things were settled depends on what they had to lose versus what harm they facilitated or directly caused. For example, I wouldn't be so worried about a guy who was forced to work in a slave labor camp to make shoes for the nazi's; I'd be less forgiving of that slave laborer if he was making V2 missiles for the nazi's and only threatened with death; I wouldn't be forgiving of a soldier who tortures prisoners and only risks losing their job and a potential reference.

[Dominus Atheos]

It's not malicious aforethought. In your example, the mobster did murder someone, but may very well have done it without any malice towards the person.

What the fuck does "malice" mean in your world, moron? In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first definition is a desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another person.

Merriam-Webster also says "malice implies a deep-seated often unexplainable desire to see another suffer <felt no malice toward their former enemies>" Princeton's dictionary says "feeling a need to see others suffer," The American Heritage Dictionary says "The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another," your mobster certainly has "cause or reason" to kill the witness, and the Oxford English Dictionary describes malice as "the desire to do harm to someone; ill will." It's entirely possible for the mob boss to kill that witness without bearing him any ill will.

If the person intentionally kills someone, that's fucking injury, isn't it? Are you saying that there is no malice in deliberately harming someone as long as you don't personally dislike the guy?

Yes. There is no malice in what soldiers do.

By this definition, psychopaths who treat others as mere objects and care not at all for their feelings have no malice.

Exactly. That's why we send people suffering from Psychopathy to mental institutions when they get caught, not prison.

[Nova Andromeda]

... we send people suffering from Psychopathy to mental institutions when they get caught, not prison.

-It's not like this is a good idea unless you can actually show that a shrink can turn these people into citizens that provide more benefit to society than the cost of retooling them and the risk in actually letting them out. To put this in perspective, do you think we would hessitate in wiping out an alien species that didn't feel any inhibition in harming us at will? Sure we might try to keep some alive for study, etc., but it's generally wasted effort to preserve those that cause massive harm without justification.

[Dominus Atheos]

... we send people suffering from Psychopathy to mental institutions when they get caught, not prison.

-It's not like this is a good idea unless you can actually show that a shrink can turn these people into citizens that provide more benefit to society than the cost of retooling them and the risk in actually letting them out.

Not at all. Prison has always been about keeping dangerous people away from others, while simultaneously punishing them for their bad choices. Since Psychopaths didn't voluntarily make any bad choices, we as a society choose to send them to a place that does not punish them, but still keeps them away from the public.

To put this in perspective, do you think we would hesitate in wiping out an alien species that didn't feel any inhibition in harming us at will? Sure we might try to keep some alive for study, etc., but it's generally wasted effort to preserve those that cause massive harm without justification.

Now who says that would be the right thing to do? Admittedly, that probably is what we as a species would end up doing, but that doesn't make it right. Why not simply destroy their space-going abilties? Simply park a few warships in orbit, and blast anything that tries to escape their atmosphere? There are dozens of less immoral actions then genocide.

[Darth Wong]

It's not malicious aforethought. In your example, the mobster did murder someone, but may very well have done it without any malice towards the person.

What the fuck does "malice" mean in your world, moron? In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first definition is a desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another person.

Merriam-Webster also says "malice implies a deep-seated often unexplainable desire to see another suffer <felt no malice toward their former enemies>" Princeton's dictionary says "feeling a need to see others suffer," The American Heritage Dictionary says "The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another," your mobster certainly has "cause or reason" to kill the witness, and the Oxford English Dictionary describes malice as "the desire to do harm to someone; ill will." It's entirely possible for the mob boss to kill that witness without bearing him any ill will.

Don't be a sophistic asshole. If "malice" has several definitions, you cannot establish that someone has "no malice" by showing that he does not meet all of those definitions. And a mobster does not have "just cause or reason" to kill a witness.

If the person intentionally kills someone, that's fucking injury, isn't it? Are you saying that there is no malice in deliberately harming someone as long as you don't personally dislike the guy?

Yes. There is no malice in what soldiers do.

Soldiers are thrust into situations where they are in a constant state of "kill or be killed". Not relevant to your argument.

By this definition, psychopaths who treat others as mere objects and care not at all for their feelings have no malice.

Exactly. That's why we send people suffering from Psychopathy to mental institutions when they get caught, not prison.

Oh really? So when some psychopath serial killer murders 50 women and buries them in his backyard, we say "you need therapy, not jail"?

[Kittie Rose]

I don't think killers are inherently bad people, though. I think that a lot of the time, they're that way because of some utter imbalance or shift in perception of reality rather than actively refusing to care about the well being of others.