Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The enjoyment of simulated torture

Rate this topic


Drew1776
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was wondering if anyone could offer their thoughts on whether enjoying violence for violence sake on TV or in movies is moral. I’ve been pondering this question since the release of Hostel. It seems that the film was marketed as a movie worth watching precisely because it featured horribly graphic images which attempted to push the limits of what had been shown before. I have not met one person, who saw the movie, who wanted to see it for the plot, actors, etc. They seemed interested, if not excited, in the prospect of seeing simulated torture of human beings. The Saw series is another movie whose sole purpose is to show people being tortured in a variety of new and exciting ways.

Bill O’Reilly addresses the issue while referencing Saw III. (I’ve posed 2 quotes)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226640,00.html

“On this Halloween, the No. 1 movie in the USA is "Saw III," a sadistic slasher flick designed solely so its audience can enjoy graphic depictions of human suffering.”
“And now we have a movie industry that can't make these sadistic films fast enough. Of course, they all hide behind freedom, but that rationalization is hollow. Those who push base entertainment are villains, no question. All of us need to wise up and jump into the culture war when the No. 1 movie in the country revels in close-upshot of limbs being sawed off, there is a problem.”

I think his characterization of Saw III is dead on. I also agree with his finding the popularity of Saw III disturbing. I was wondering what the “objectivist stance” on this might be. Would indulging in such horror be immoral? Would it be a problem with a person’s sense of life? Or do you think I’m completely off base and there is nothing wrong with enjoying and paying to see the torture of a human being because you know it’s fake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, I don't like movies, and they bring me no value or enjoyment. However, movies are a type of art, and I do like art (of course).

Art is a reflection of how one views reality. Indulging horror, for the sake of horror, would illustrate that reality is full of death and horror. Give the description of the movie that you gave, I am assuming that the movie is full of horror and death. I would rather indulge in life, than death, therefore, I do not engage in that type of art.

With that said, I am sure you can answer your own questions about the morality of those type of movies. If you can't, I can elaborate further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do enjoy films and although I've never wanted to watch Hostel, I have seen, and enjoyed, Saw 1+2. It wasn't for the gore or sadism but I enjoy the being-scared-but-not-being-in-danger of watching a good, scary film. Saw is a well-plotted psychological-horror, with a protagonist who puts 'sinners' into situations that they can escape from, but only if they accept the full desperation of their plight. I didn't watch to see people die, I watched to see if they lived - and trying to guess plot-twists in the film is also quite fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't enjoy any kind of torture in art, though I know that sometimes it is necessary for a plot (for example, John Galt's torture at the hands of James Taggart and his group). The only exception I can think of is the torture scenes in 24 where the terrorists are being tortured. With 24, however, it is the evil who suffer, and torture is not the focus of the show. In contrast, in a movie like Saw, torture is the ENTIRE movie.

I saw the first Saw movie, which in my view was nothing more than horror for horror's sake. All of the heroes were ineffective, and deeply flawed. The only character in the movie with any competence was Jigsaw, and the pseudojustification they give him for his crimes was sickening. The major plot twist, while surprising, felt quite contrived, as did the whole film. For example:

SPOILERS (below)

Jigsaw can make poisons that only HE has the antidote for, and can be sure that Zepp won't go to the police or get medical help.

Jigsaw somehow has the resources and the technical expertise to maintain an enormous lair and build tons of elaborate traps, all the while evading the police.

Somehow Jigsaw managed to hide the device to trigger the electric current in the chains from his two victims the whole time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WWF. Lovin it. At least, I used to love it.

Somehow, the guys at WWF made fighting seem like a great source of fun.

I can't pinpoint what I liked about that show so much, but I can describe certain things I liked about it:

1) The sight of the face of the guy on the floor, with the huge shade of Yukozuna hovering on his face, when Yukozuna is standing high on the ropes, with all his tons of fat ready to land on the guy's stomach. It was just amusing, watching that fat ass climb up there, ready to land on the poor creature below... :lol:

2) When heartbreaker would, after suffering severe beating, muster strength and punch the fejesus out of his competitor... Alright! Go get him, heartbreaker!

3) The amusing monologues where fighters would try to scare off their competitors, making threats in the level of 3rd graders, with the angry faces and all! GRRR!!! I'm gonna turn him into butter! His own mama wouldn't recognize him!

I guess there was little in that show beyond violence, but damn it! It was fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art is a reflection of how one views reality. Indulging horror, for the sake of horror, would illustrate that reality is full of death and horror. Give the description of the movie that you gave, I am assuming that the movie is full of horror and death. I would rather indulge in life, than death, therefore, I do not engage in that type of art.

With that said, I am sure you can answer your own questions about the morality of those type of movies. If you can't, I can elaborate further.

Is your point that since the indulgence in these movies means indulgence in death that would make the act immoral? By all means please elaborate.

I do enjoy films and although I've never wanted to watch Hostel, I have seen, and enjoyed, Saw 1+2. It wasn't for the gore or sadism but I enjoy the being-scared-but-not-being-in-danger of watching a good, scary film. Saw is a well-plotted psychological-horror, with a protagonist who puts 'sinners' into situations that they can escape from, but only if they accept the full desperation of their plight. I didn't watch to see people die, I watched to see if they lived - and trying to guess plot-twists in the film is also quite fun.

There are hundreds of scary psychological horror/thriller movies which do not contain a string of sadistic acts in fact many contain heroes, which Saw 1 & 2 are lacking. So if you didn’t watch the Saw movies for the sadistic acts what made you interested in those movies? I assume you were merely after a new thriller. If the sadism present in Saw did not bother you why reject Hostel?

I don't enjoy any kind of torture in art, though I know that sometimes it is necessary for a plot (for example, John Galt's torture at the hands of James Taggart and his group). The only exception I can think of is the torture scenes in 24 where the terrorists are being tortured. With 24, however, it is the evil who suffer, and torture is not the focus of the show. In contrast, in a movie like Saw, torture is the ENTIRE movie.

I agree. I figured someone would bring it up as with all things the context is important. Enjoying the torture of evil men in the knowledge that the information extracted from them will save people is fundamentally different from the enjoyment of torture for torture’s sake. A scene might also be necessary for the plot (as with John Galt). However Atlas Shrugged contains life affirming values whereas Saw contains none.

So LaszloWalrus since on the surface we seem to be in agreement, how would you answer my first question? Is the enjoyment of a movie like Saw immoral because it is the indulgence of torture for torture’s sake which is anti-life? Or would you look upon enjoyment of such a movie as simply a misguided love of bad art?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is just that one of the common threads throughout human history, cutting across time and culture, is the fact that humans get enjoyment out of watching living things being tortured, injured and killed. I would think that the modern "horror movie" is just a legal and rather less reprehensible way for people to get this enjoyment than the old method of actually maiming and killing real people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WWF. Lovin it. At least, I used to love it.

Somehow, the guys at WWF made fighting seem like a great source of fun.

I can't pinpoint what I liked about that show so much, but I can describe certain things I liked about it:

1) The sight of the face of the guy on the floor, with the huge shade of Yukozuna hovering on his face, when Yukozuna is standing high on the ropes, with all his tons of fat ready to land on the guy's stomach. It was just amusing, watching that fat ass climb up there, ready to land on the poor creature below... :dough:

2) When heartbreaker would, after suffering severe beating, muster strength and punch the fejesus out of his competitor... Alright! Go get him, heartbreaker!

3) The amusing monologues where fighters would try to scare off their competitors, making threats in the level of 3rd graders, with the angry faces and all! GRRR!!! I'm gonna turn him into butter! His own mama wouldn't recognize him!

I guess there was little in that show beyond violence, but damn it! It was fun!

If I recall correctly, the question is, why is this type of enjoyment good. You described the type of violance (and I can argu that it isn't violance qua violance), but you didn't explain WHY you like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, the question is, why is this type of enjoyment good. You described the type of violence (and I can argue that it isn't violence qua violence), but you didn't explain WHY you like it.

I thought it was obvious from my post that I like it because of the humour I see in it, and because of the fighting spirit.

As for the last thing: the fighting spirit is probably a fake, but seeing someone fight with everything they have is fun.

I guess if the violence was real, if it was just cruelty, it would greatly deter me. But that sort of commercial violence is fun to watch (at least, I enjoyed it when I was 14).

As for enjoying actual torture: I guess some sick people would enjoy it because for them, it would represent a natural state of a human. They might enjoy it as a metaphor that approves to them: "you're nothing, you're worth zero". Some people might enjoy it (along with disgust) because it would confront them with what they would call "real life". By "real life" I mean something that people don't usually have a daily contact with.

I remember when I was younger I wanted to see a dead animal, because I was curious how death looks like, and I also wanted to confront it, to stare at it, to make it tangible. So maybe the state of unbearable pain is the same for some people, since people don't usually go through that type of pain in their lives. But then it would be experienced as satisfied curiosity more than enjoyment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So LaszloWalrus since on the surface we seem to be in agreement, how would you answer my first question? Is the enjoyment of a movie like Saw immoral because it is the indulgence of torture for torture’s sake which is anti-life? Or would you look upon enjoyment of such a movie as simply a misguided love of bad art?

I'm not sure I'm willing to go all the way to immoral (though I'm not ruling it out). Someone who enjoys torture scenes qua torture scenes probably should figure out what is leading to that enjoyment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TANGENT! :thumbsup: :

I personally very much dislike gorey movies. It feels unpleasant to bombard myself with negative images.

But is it moral to watch meaningless Slasher films? Hell yes it is.

This is one of my major beefs with the Objectivist movement as of late.

Many Objectivists seem to casually toss around the terms "immoral" or even "evil" in regards to other peoples' thoughts and emotions - not their behavior. This sort of habbit is best left to Christians and other guilt-glutton idealogues - not Objectivists. No thought is immoral - no emotion is immoral. It's actions, and actions alone, that are of moral consequence.

As long as you aren't violating the rights of other people by initiating force/fraud/ect - you're a moral person on a basic level. A person's private emotions can be beneficial or harmful to himself - or they can be neutral/neither, simply a matter of taste, or something related to subjective past experiences. But emotions are just that - private: meaning, of their concern only. Not their neighbor's.

Does enjoyment of gore-films indicate some sort of negative metaphysical assessment in a person's psyche? Maybe. Maybe not. Psychology and motivation are extremely complex, varied things. People could indeed be watching them as an affirmation of their own malevolent sense of life. Or maybe some people enjoy the adrenaline rush that fear/stress-inducing stimuli tends to evoke (similar to that given from roller-coasters, sky diving, ect). Or maybe some people enjoy them as a "balancing factor" - since fear and suspense are part of the spectrum of human experience.

Whatever the motivation is - even if it is due to a malevolent sense of life - to ascribe someone as "immoral" because of such is ridiculous. Rand in many ways implicitly implied this attitude herself in her later (rather bitter) writings, but she was wrong to do so.

Edited by Tsuru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many Objectivists seem to casually toss around the terms "immoral" or even "evil" in regards to other peoples' thoughts and emotions - not their behavior. This sort of habbit is best left to Christians and other guilt-glutton idealogues - not Objectivists. No thought is immoral - no emotion is immoral. It's actions, and actions alone, that are of moral consequence.

I'm not making the argument one way or the other regarding the morality of watching gorey movies, but that is the action in question. The action of watching a movie is based upon thoughts, desires or emotions. The action of watching a movie is well within the realm of moral evaluation and it is not necessarily moral to do so.

It would be proper to evaluate exactly why one enjoys simulated torture (emotionally or mentally) as that may be an indication of mental illness.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tsuru, there's a major difference between "immoral" and "criminal". No one is claiming that those who watch horror movies are criminal.

I know what you're getting at, but I'm not confusing the two.

I'm saying that it's ridiculous for all these Objectivists to be asking whether peoples' personal choices in taste/art/media are moral or not. Can we be critical, evaluate, and judge certain media in its quality and worth, or judge it as ugly (be it visual/metaphysical/emotional ect)? Sure. Can we say that people ideally shouldn't willingly subject themselves to being bombarded with negative imagery? Sure. Can we even make (probable) psychological conclusions as to what makes people attract to certain forms of media? Yes.

Can we call people immoral for it? No. Morality is serious business. A sensible, rational person has no justification in actively expecting anything from (or condemning) other people besides following the basic rules of morality (ie, respecting rights).

Objectivism is the philosophy of self interest. Not interest and concern in what the Jones's next door spend their free time on.

I'm not making the argument one way or the other regarding the morality of watching gorey movies, but that is the action in question. The action of watching a movie is based upon thoughts, desires or emotions. The action of watching a movie is well within the realm of moral evaluation and it is not necessarily moral to do so.

Perhaps as an action it technically is - but I think the only proper conclusion to make would be that it has no moral worth in the positive per-say. That doesn't mean that it isn't moral to go watch "Saw 3" if you feel like it. By doing so you are not doing anything wrong - which is what is implied when it is asked if watching slasher movies is moral or not.

Although the whole concept of morally scrutinizing yourself for doing things like reading a book is just dumb.

I think the whole issue of questioning interest in this type of media isn't a bad direction to take. I'm sure there are conclusions that can be drawn from it on sociological/cultural/psychological standpoints. The issue is people recklessly slinging about the label of "moral" on things like this. It's one of the major pitfalls of current objectivist culture - I'm willing to bet a very large number of Objectivists have irrational feelings of inner guilt because their "sense of life" is obviously skewed and fundamentally wrong with them due to their aesthetic tastes. Your moral worth doesn't detract because you like compositions by Strauss or "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" cartoons. It would be laughable if people weren't taking it so seriously.

Edited by Tsuru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No thought is immoral - no emotion is immoral. It's actions, and actions alone, that are of moral consequence.

As long as you aren't violating the rights of other people by initiating force/fraud/ect - you're a moral person on a basic level. A person's private emotions can be beneficial or harmful to himself - or they can be neutral/neither, simply a matter of taste

It is exactly the other way around: To judge if someone is good or bad it is precisely their thoughts and emotions that you have to examine. Actions are just the consequences of one's thoughts and emotions. The only time you can say for sure if someone is good/bad is if the actions are in such context that it allows you to know for sure that the motive was bad.

The law also takes intent under account: murder with intention and planning is more severe than killing someone while being insane, which is more severe than killing someone by accident.

Moral/immoral is primarily for an (isolated) individual. Someone can be moral or immoral on a desert island.

You seem to confuse rights - which are ethics in a social context, with morality, which is primarily a something of an individual.

So if you're thinking to yourself (just a made-up example, nothing personal): "I hate my girlfriend, I wish she was dead" and then you make love to her, You are bad.

By just judging your actions alone one might conclude that the action of making love to your gf is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism is the philosophy of self interest. Not interest and concern in what the Jones's next door spend their free time on.
Because of this focus on self-interest, people can be immoral even when they do not have any impact on others, just on themselves. A man who thinks faith is the highest principle of knowledge has adopted an evil idea, even if he does not apply that externally, only to himself.

Of course, judging peoples' thoughts is not easy because we cannot get inside their heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ifat: you sate "To judge is someone is good or bad, it is precisely their thoughts and emotions that you have to examine."

Don't you agree it is impossible to fully judge a person based on their thoughts? How can you identify what a person is thinking (ESP?).

The best way to judge if a person is good or bad is a mixture between judging their thoughts (e.g. what they say) and matching it up with their actions, and identify any contradictions.

There is a very good reason why you should do this to judge a person. First, a person may not have the same language as you (e.g. they may only know English as a secondary language) and their ability to communicate may not be as strong as yours. Secondly, you would be able to compare their actions with their words, and if their actions are different then their words, challenge them.

Tsuru: You said "Objectivism is the philosophy of self interest. Not interested and concern in what the Jones's next door spend their free time on." You do realize that what the Jones' do next door may very well affect your self interest. Would you really ignore the Jones' next door if you overhear them talking about blowing up a building, funneling money to such groups as Al-Quida, and watching them make model bombs to blow up said building? Or, would you say thats poking your nose in someone else's business, and you would let them continue that behaviour?

You also state that "Your moral worth doesn't detract because you like ... 'Aqua Teen Hunger Force' [ATHF] cartoons". Why not? What episode of ATHF shows a positive sense of life? What episode of ATHF has a positive ending? Why do you value ATHF? Or, in other words, why is ATHF not immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we call people immoral for it? No. Morality is serious business. A sensible, rational person has no justification in actively expecting anything from (or condemning) other people besides following the basic rules of morality (ie, respecting rights).

Yes, we must certainly can call someone immoral for doing something immoral and we should. A sensible, rational person should be making moral judgements of other people they may have to associate with if they have sufficient facts to make such judgment. I think you may be confusing the purpose of one person making a moral judgement of another person regardless of how trivial the particular issue is to you. That purpose is typically to decide to what extent a person should associate with another person based on said evaluation and/or to treat them as they deserve to be treated.

Now on a scale of moral judgements, I'm typically not going place a choice in movies high on the scale, but it may determine whether or not I decide to go with them to see movies or not, or whether I trust their judgement in terms of their review of a movie.

Perhaps as an action it technically is
It isn't merely "technically" an action, it is an action. There is no such thing as "technical actions".

but I think the only proper conclusion to make would be that it has no moral worth in the positive per-say.

That is not the only proper conclusion though. Again, one must know what purpose the enjoyment of gore serves, and how one acts or behaves in relation to it or as a result of it. If I'm in a movie theater and the "victim" in the movie is being cut apart by a chainsaw and a fellow movie-goer jubulantly yells out "Yea baby, cut that bitch open!!!", I'm going to make a moral judgement about that person in terms of being someone I will distance myself from. A statement like that in a setting like that can be indicative of someone with serious mental or emotional issues, if not simply a very poor sense of life.

By doing so you are not doing anything wrong

On the contrary, something that is immoral is wrong with respect to the standard of value being man's life. It just may be that the only one "suffering" from the wrong action is the actor himself. The action can still be wrong even if no one other than the actor suffers from it. I have no more desire to be around self-destructive people than people who are harmful to others. In fact I ended a long term friendship with a person who was becoming increasingly self-destructive and would not listen to the reasonable advice of many other people over a long period of time because of the negative effects that "toxic" relationship was having on me.

On the face of your comments, I suspect you are falling prey to popular societal idea that being "judgemental" is a bad thing. Quite the opposite, exercising proper judgement of one's own actions and the actions of other people is precisely what people should do in the interests of their lives and in the interest of justice, treating people as they deserve to be treated. And that includes movie selections and reading books. It's more a matter of insuring the degree to which one changes their relationship with a person is proportionate to the morality or immorality involved. An immoral choice in movies is probably not going to be a deal breaker for me.

Although the whole concept of morally scrutinizing yourself for doing things like reading a book is just dumb.

You may choose not to be analytical regarding the reading of books for yourself, but you are wrong to suggest that it is "just dumb" for others to be careful and considerate of their own actions. Ironically, you are making a blanket moral judgement about people with that statement without concern for particular facts or contexts. Since we have a finite amount of time on this planet, there can be many instances when the choice to read a book, even a particular book, can be an immoral choice when weighed against other things a person could or should be doing with their life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ifat: you sate "To judge is someone is good or bad, it is precisely their thoughts and emotions that you have to examine."

Don't you agree it is impossible to fully judge a person based on their thoughts? How can you identify what a person is thinking (ESP?).

Time Maker: it is definitely possible to judge what someone is thinking. It is possible based on what a man says, what he does, the expression on his face, look in his eyes, body language, etc'.

If someone looks angry, makes aggressive body movements, points a gun at me and says "I am going to kill you, you b**ch" I would pretty much say the guy thinks to himself about the act of whacking me. And so should any judge.

If he actually does shoot, we also know for sure that he was thinking about killing me.

The best way to judge if a person is good or bad is a mixture between judging their thoughts (e.g. what they say) and matching it up with their actions, and identify any contradictions.

You made a big mistake in equating thoughts with words. Words are part of "action" and not part of "thought".

In fact everything I stated as methods to know someone's thoughts are observed behavior (observed action). None of those things to be observed gives a direct link to one's thoughts. Perhaps the closest thing is the eyes ("The eyes don't lie"), but that can be controlled as well.

The only person that you have direct access to their thoughts is yourself.

You also state that "Your moral worth doesn't detract because you like ... 'Aqua Teen Hunger Force' [ATHF] cartoons". Why not? What episode of ATHF shows a positive sense of life? What episode of ATHF has a positive ending? Why do you value ATHF? Or, in other words, why is ATHF not immoral?

So what is the method that you, Time Maker, use to know the ideas and principles behind ATHF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ifatart: You said, in reference to my statement of not ever being able to know what a person is thinking, and instead, judging a person by action, you stated "If someone looks angry, makes aggressive body movements, points a gun at me and says "I am going to kill you, you b**ch" I would pretty much say the guy thinks to himself about the act of whacking me. And so should any judge. ".

There's a problem. What you described, about an individual assaulting you with gun, in an action, not a thought. Now, using reasoning, we can CONCLUDE that the person is interested in killing you, however, we don't have that as a fact.

HOWEVER, we do have a fact that the individual DID put a gun to your face, and threaten to whack you. That action, in and of of itself, is enough to make a judgement on that individual, don't you think?

You also stated that words are "action" and not thoughts. I suppose I can agree that an action takes place to communicate thoughts. However, that means you do agree with my side saying that we can never judge a person by their thoughts, but by their actions.

You also want to know what method I used to know the ideas and principles behind Aqua Teen Hunger Force (which I will call "ATHF" to save my fingers time). I watched the episode online. Now, before you state that I am a pirate, the Cartoon Network offers this show, among others, to be streamed online for free. You can check out the show, if you choose, by going http://www.adultswim.com/adultswimfix (if you lived in the USA, that is). After I watched the show, I made a judgement based on what the episode is about. I, after all, engage in judgement.

Vladimir Berkov: You said that Aqua Teen Hunger is hilarious. What exactly makes it so funny, to you. The episode that is streaming now is about Frylock dying of cancer, and no one caring about it. So if you would like to use that as an example, please do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am afraid I haven't seen the episode where Frylock is dying of cancer so I can't really comment on it. What is funny about ATHF is the interplay between the characters, some of which are stupid, others of which are more normal, etc. For instance check out this clip of Master Shake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoQ6ngzMz1Y

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time Maker: First of all, do you agree that someone can be moral/immoral for thinking/wanting/feeling something?

I'm not sure if we even agree on this part.

But I can still answer your post because it talks about (questions) the relation between action and thought. So here goes:

Ifatart: You said, in reference to my statement of not ever being able to know what a person is thinking, and instead, judging a person by action, you stated "If someone looks angry, makes aggressive body movements, points a gun at me and says "I am going to kill you, you b**ch" I would pretty much say the guy thinks to himself about the act of whacking me. And so should any judge. ".

There's a problem. What you described, about an individual assaulting you with gun, is an action, not a thought. Now, using reasoning, we can CONCLUDE that the person is interested in killing you, however, we don't have that as a fact.

This is over-skepticism.

The very same thing can be said about gravity: Yesterday, and in all of the days before it, gravity worked according to our formulas. But, how can we know for SURE that gravity will still work tomorrow? Maybe somewhere in the universe, some process happened that emmited certain unknown particles that change the way gravitation works?

We can CONCLUDE that if it worked yesterday, it will work tomorrow, but we cannot know for sure. And to me, your argument seems just like that.

Fact is, that there IS a relation between facial/verbal/body expression, and thoughts and emotions. If you ever pay attention to your own muscles, you have noticed that most of the time when you are happy you smile, and when you are sad, your face is "down".

Naturally, people's emotions (and also thoughts) do show on their faces. They may not, if they desguise it, or if they have a habit of not revealing emotions (some people are also like that by habit).

So unless you have a reason to believe that some person has an interest in disguising their emotion, you should rely on the connection between emotions and expression to gain knowledge (which might be crucial for your own life).

This is like gravity: unless you have some reason to believe that tonight something will happen that will change gravity, you can still plan your next day while knowing you will not have to struggle to put your shoes on tomorrow morning (might be a hard thing to do without gravity).

HOWEVER, we do have a fact that the individual DID put a gun to your face, and threaten to whack you. That action, in and of of itself, is enough to make a judgement on that individual, don't you think?

No, if the man was under drug influence that was injected to him by force, or if he was threatened/brain washed into this action, he is not evil. Just the actions alone are not enough.

Those scenarios are not very likely, and usually those action are enough to learn about the intend of the aggressor, but not always. The point is: in a court (and in ethics) there is a lot of significance for the motive. If you kill by accident, or murder with intent the result is the same but the degree of morality is different.

You also want to know what method I used to know the ideas and principles behind Aqua Teen Hunger Force (which I will call "ATHF" to save my fingers time). I watched the episode online. .. After I watched the show, I made a judgement based on what the episode is about. I, after all, engage in judgement.

I don't care about this aqua force thingy. My question was how did you make the judgement about the principles and philosophy behind that show? What was your judgement based on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...