Protecting And Serving: Cop (mis)behavior and consequences general discussion

colorles

Well-known member
Not what I was saying. Maybe read next time?

"I don't believe in rights." Well, do you believe in any concept of morality at all? Honest question. Now that morality, whatever it is that views this behavior as acceptable, seems to hold that government killing its innocent citizens is just the price of doing business. Because that's what you are arguing here.

But what's the entire justification for government, morally speaking? Assuming you don't believe in a divine right system, it's almost always to protect its citizens. But your morality system is fine with the government killing its own innocent citizens for a sufficiently good purpose. And this is the key point: every action the government (with maybe the exception of printing money) takes will kill and harm the innocent.

From this, we come to a clear point: if every action the government takes will kill, then how can a government achieve it's goal of protecting people? First: every time government acts, it acts as a hypocrite at best, claiming to exist to protect people while simultaneously killing them. Second, then the only time it's okay for government to act is if it saves more than it kills.

I have my own code of morals. I just understand that nobody else is compelled to give a fuck about them. My morals only have weight given a big enough stick to back them up.

And who says a government's purpose is to protect its people? Do you still believe in Santa Claus my man?

Remember, friend: your own personal philosophy and idealistic beliefs about existence, seldom match up to reality. We live in a world where a creature's very existence is predicated on killing and consuming other creatures; a non-stop exchange of energy and suffering and occasional happiness, but mostly suffering.

If you find some point between those two extremes for any length of time, consider it a blessing and go forward
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
I have my own code of morals. I just understand that nobody else is compelled to give a fuck about them. My morals only have weight given a big enough stick to back them up.

And who says a government's purpose is to protect its people? Do you still believe in Santa Claus my man?

Remember, friend: your own personal philosophy and idealistic beliefs about existence, seldom match up to reality. We live in a world where a creature's very existence is predicated on killing and consuming other creatures; a non-stop exchange of energy and suffering and occasional happiness, but mostly suffering.

If you find some point between those two extremes for any length of time, consider it a blessing and go forward
damn dude...glad I don't live in your head.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
And who says a government's purpose is to protect its people? Do you still believe in Santa Claus my man?
Well, if it doesn't exist to protect people, why not get rid of it entirely? Why bother saying that the cops actions are justified, if you believe that the cops existence as part of government is wrong in and of itself?

Second, you again mischaracterized what I said. I didn't say a government's purpose, instead I very specifically used the word "justification":
But what's the entire justification for government, morally speaking? Assuming you don't believe in a divine right system, it's almost always to protect its citizens.
That's what one might argue gives government its legitimacy. Otherwise, without it, there's nothing immoral about shooting a cop that's giving you a traffic citation, because that's just some random guy with no moral authority.
Remember, friend: your own personal philosophy and idealistic beliefs about existence, seldom match up to reality. We live in a world where a creature's very existence is predicated on killing and consuming other creatures; a non-stop exchange of energy and suffering and occasional happiness, but mostly suffering.

If you find some point between those two extremes for any length of time, consider it a blessing and go forward
And here, you clearly show you don't understand my personal philosophy. I have a morality that is binding upon myself. I act in ways justified by this morality, and want to move society closer in goal with it through my actions. All of these actions are dictated by me more than society. Moral theory is not dependent on reality, which I think is something you don't realize. One has a moral theory based on whatever system one may want, then one applies reality and chooses ones actions in reality using the moral system as a guide.
 
Last edited:

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
This is a very significant statement. Please elaborate.
A moral theory, whatever specific one chosen, is a framework that is used by a person to determine what is good. For a simple example, once Neo pops out of the simulation, his morality still applies: he cannot start mass murdering people outside of the matrix morally. Yes, he's effectively swapped universes, but the morality still applies. Moreover, it applies largely in the same way that his morality applied in the Matrix prior to taking the red pill.

Conversely, one can take a moral theory and choose to apply it to an obviously fake universe. You can play a video game (with enough choice) and act as a Catholic, being sure to only take actions (maybe only to the best of ones ability) in line with Catholic doctrine, treating the NPCs as moral actors. The choice to act this way in a video game may not have moral value in the real world, but it's still something one can do.

So in essence, a morality system is basically a choice function (or more accurately, a choice functor), such that when given a situation in the given reality and a set of choices you can make, gives back a choice (or perhaps multiple choices) of actions that are morally okay or good (depending on how the system works: NAP morality doesn't give good actions, just removes bad ones, Catholicism gives morally okay actions as well as good actions, Utilitarianism gives each action a utility value, etc.)

Now when I say that they are independent of reality, what I mean is that the basic rules of the moral system do not change despite a changing reality. In a video game where one is treating the NPCs as moral actors, one seeking to apply Pacifism will not harm them. Similarly, a pacifist IRL will not harm people IRL (for whatever definition of harm such a pacifist uses). The morality works in the same way, regardless of the universe: Utilitarianism will always seek to quantify how much utility is provided by an action, the NAP will always avoid doing aggression, etc. This can result in them being impractical in certain scenarios, but that's sorta the point: morality isn't about practicality, it's about right action.

So when @colorles describes the world X way, and says thus your moral system (though he used personal philosophy) doesn't match up with morality, he's not even wrong. His critique is that a moral system doesn't describe reality, but it's not supposed to. It's a function (again, actually a functor for those category theorists on the site!) that takes reality as its input and outputs a morally viable choice(s).

It's like saying that "y = sin(x)" is "2". That's not even wrong. A wrong statement would be saying that "y can have the value of 2 such that y = sin(x)". But the statement '"y = sin(x)" is "2"' implies that a function is actually a number.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
I'm trying to figure out what it is you're even trying to say. 'Fictional settings are different than the real world'?

Sure, you can treat a game environment as though it were the real world for moral purposes. That isn't meaningfully useful to trying to understanding what is and is not morality.

I feel constrained to ask if you are a moral relatavist?
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
I'm trying to figure out what it is you're even trying to say. 'Fictional settings are different than the real world'?

Sure, you can treat a game environment as though it were the real world for moral purposes. That isn't meaningfully useful to trying to understanding what is and is not morality.

I feel constrained to ask if you are a moral relatavist?
No, not what I'm saying, and no, not a moral relativist.

What I'm saying is that a moral system is just that, a system. It's not a description of how the world works or ought to work, but instead rules for a person to follow. Those rules apply in good times and in bad times, and however other people might act: all that changes is which rule applies. For example, for a NAP following person, if another person is passing by you in a public street, it's morally wrong to attack them. If that person pulls a gun to rob you, it's morally okay to shoot them. In both cases, you are applying the same ruleset (don't aggress on others), but getting a different result because of different inputs.

How that other person acted (by obeying or not obeying the NAP) has no bearing on the moral system itself (it doesn't change the rules). It does change the result of applying the moral ruleset, as it has different inputs. Note also that it's independent of reality/society: this applies in the videogame Doom, Modern America, or the Islamic world. In each society/reality, the rules apply in the same way.

In contrast, a relative moral system would state that the morality of ones actions is dependent on the society one is in. Basically, that the moral ruleset itself changes based on where/how one is living. They would find that X action given Y circumstances is fine in place A, but not in B. For example, marrying a women (X) when you have a wife (Y) is moral in the islamic world (A) but immoral in America (B).
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Moral theory is not dependent on reality, which I think is something you don't realize.
The AnCap admitting his morals have little to do with reality; at least your being honest.
damn dude...glad I don't live in your head.
Eh, he's not wrong though.

He just ripped all the illusions and facades of civilization down and said a truth most don't want to hear. It's a dog-eat-dog world, civilization is just a facade we throw up to help try to pretend otherwise.

This is something the cops know too; they have the ability to kill anyone they want, provided they have the backing of their dept and DA and a fig leaf excuse to hide behind.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
The AnCap admitting his morals have little to do with reality; at least your being honest.
Not what I said at all. Great reading comprehension btw. The theory is just that: theory. It doesn't depend on what how the world works.

To abridge what I'm saying: The complaint listed is like saying to a catholic that people don't believe in Jesus, thus HA! Clearly catholic morality doesn't work.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Not what I said at all. Great reading comprehension btw. The theory is just that: theory. It doesn't depend on what how the world works.

To abridge what I'm saying: The complaint listed is like saying to a catholic that people don't believe in Jesus, thus HA! Clearly catholic morality doesn't work.
...ok, so you worship the nap and AnCap theory/bullshit to the levels hold Jesus...wow, don't even know what to say to that.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
The AnCap admitting his morals have little to do with reality; at least your being honest.

Eh, he's not wrong though.

He just ripped all the illusions and facades of civilization down and said a truth most don't want to hear. It's a dog-eat-dog world, civilization is just a facade we throw up to help try to pretend otherwise.

This is something the cops know too; they have the ability to kill anyone they want, provided they have the backing of their dept and DA and a fig leaf excuse to hide behind.
Civilization isn't a facade; it's an agreement to stop trying to kill each other for any number of a myriad of reasons, so that collectively we can all get on with the business of living our lives. Though admittedly, it's one that's currently falling apart as we speak; due to people outright refusing to abide by it, while also demanding that their enemies continue to do so.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Civilization isn't a facade; it's an agreement to stop trying to kill each other for any number of a myriad of reasons, so that collectively we can all get on with the business of living our lives. Though admittedly, it's one that's currently falling apart as we speak; due to people outright refusing to abide by it, while also demanding that their enemies continue to do so.
Oh, I wish it wasn't a facade, but modern events and the last few years have cast down that illusion.

People, organizations, and nations, can chose to be better than our base nature; however, cops are taught to escalate everything to stay in control of the situation, or to view any weapon not under their control and in their line of sight as a direct threat to their existence.

To them it doesn't matter that it was the wrong house and the guy was reasonably concerned for his safety coming down stairs and opening the door, it only matters that their fight or flight and 'anyone with a weapon and not a cop is a threat' mentality kicked in.

This is why I think the 'back the blue' part of the Right are fools, who remain willingly ignorant of many current events that show systemic levels issues with police actions and mentalities in the US. The people who rioted about George Floyd weren't all wrong about police abuses, weren't all paid actors just agitating on the direction of someone else or gangbangers using it as cover, and we only need to look at all the glowie action around Jan 6th to show this is a systemic issue on the Federal level as well.

An individual cop or deputy can be a good person and try to abide by the Constitution more than what their local paymaster says/desires, however enforcing the law while protecting the Constitution is not the mentality most cops or DA's operate under. They view Constitutional limits on power as things to be dodged, upsurped, or outright ignored at direction of whomever pays their salaries.

Because many cops operate under the same 'dog-eat-dog' mentality colorles posted about, and just view themselves as being better than the more rabid dogs, or desire to be the top dogs in the social-political pack, and few people have more overall power in the populace than cops.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Oh, I wish it wasn't a facade, but modern events and the last few years have cast down that illusion.

People, organizations, and nations, can chose to be better than our base nature; however, cops are taught to escalate everything to stay in control of the situation, or to view any weapon not under their control and in their line of sight as a direct threat to their existence.

To them it doesn't matter that it was the wrong house and the guy was reasonably concerned for his safety coming down stairs and opening the door, it only matters that their fight or flight and 'anyone with a weapon and not a cop is a threat' mentality kicked in.

This is why I think the 'back the blue' part of the Right are fools, who remain willingly ignorant of many current events that show systemic levels issues with police actions and mentalities in the US. The people who rioted about George Floyd weren't all wrong about police abuses, weren't all paid actors just agitating on the direction of someone else or gangbangers using it as cover, and we only need to look at all the glowie action around Jan 6th to show this is a systemic issue on the Federal level as well.

An individual cop or deputy can be a good person and try to abide by the Constitution more than what their local paymaster says/desires, however enforcing the law while protecting the Constitution is not the mentality most cops or DA's operate under. They view Constitutional limits on power as things to be dodged, upsurped, or outright ignored at direction of whomever pays their salaries.

Because many cops operate under the same 'dog-eat-dog' mentality colorles posted about, and just view themselves as being better than the more rabid dogs, or desire to be the top dogs in the social-political pack, and few people have more overall power in the populace than cops.
As I said; they're breaking the agreement, while simultaneously expecting/demanding that everyone else to continue to adhere to it.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
...ok, so you worship the nap and AnCap theory/bullshit to the levels hold Jesus...wow, don't even know what to say to that.
Wow, you always do seem to find a way to purposely misread everything by someone you dislike, don't you?
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Wow, you always do seem to find a way to purposely misread everything by someone you dislike, don't you?
No, I just know how to sort BS and all you did was give a long, wordy of saying you worship the NAP and AnCap 'principles' as deeply as practicing Catholics, because you chose said analogy and how you phrased it.

And this isn't about liking you or not, this is about how my eyes glaze over whenever you start trying to dress up your AnCap 'ideals' as a coherent belief system, and not just huffing the societal equivalent of unicorn farts.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
No, I just know how to sort BS and all you did was give a long, wordy of saying you worship the NAP and AnCap 'principles' as deeply as practicing Catholics, because you chose said analogy and how you phrased it.
Yes. That's exactly what I said. Great job reading. Well done.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
@Bacle, you need to cut back on the black pills, man.

Cap its a part of the process we've all been there

1. Denile

2. Anger

3. Barganing

4. Depression

5. Acceptance


Barcle, has pushed through the denile phase, the anger phase, and the barganing phase right now he's in stage 4. We've all been there and were just going to have to let the guy process it at his own pace.
 

stephen the barbarian

Well-known member

Users who are viewing this thread

Top