A question about morality and media

[nutdog]

Even runner-ups on TB get two coupons for 10-pc orders of chicken nuggets at Burger King.

You might want to avoid motivational speaking as a career.

Seriously, I don't have any experience in persuading people I should be called Doctor but I have been in a few business meetings and justifying your thinking often has little to do with convincing your boss (or customer). I can have all the facts and figures but if my competitor has super bowl tickets...

I suspect if your dissertation thesis isn't what the judges want to hear then cogency may be irrelevant. And I know that's true on internet forums.

Although at times I may have been sucked into the idea of winning the argument sometimes I'll just post to offer food for thought.

If you have never pondered any of the following things raise your hand. Ramming the guy on the freeway who is driving like a jerkwad, tapping your neighbors spouse even though you know it will cause major damage and heartbreak, screaming at you baby who has been crying for the last three hours through the night, running over your neighbors cat who has been defecating all over your yard, etc, etc, etc. Okay raise your hands, anybody, anybody, Buehler. You see we all have these horrible monsters luring in our ID. Ever seen Forbidden Planet?

I get what you're saying but it's not all about personal behavior. There is a communal aspect to human life that does have effects.

This popped up in my Facebook feed today:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-he-has-proved-his-critics-right-1777147.html

Somewhat relevant to this thread. I'll not comment, just link.

Never saw a Tarantino movie that I thought was good. The Kill Bill I saw part of was downright boring.

It's interesting to me that directors, actors, musicians and artist in general are all proud of how their work influences the masses when it comes to social change. You won't have to search hard to find people boasting about how their show was "ground breaking" because it depicted (insert maligned character here) in a good light. And of course Fox News controls the thinking of millions.

But insinuate that glorification of negative behaviors might be having a negative influence on society and watch the reaction.

Seems like these ought to be common sense, no?

But dude. There's an argument to be won. Somebody has to win it. They have to.

 

[UncleFluffy]

Wow has this thread actually turned into a debate over whether Hitler was evil or not? Seriously?

I think it was about the "absolute" modifier, rather than him being evil.

A couple of thoughts -

1) It may well be that a few members of a group are not completely evil in every respect and have some redeeming qualities. That is irrelevant to whether the group as a whole, and the principles it bases its actions on, are evil.

2) The fact that we can think of other evils besides those perpetrated by one group does not make the evils perpetrated by that group any less evil.

3) Item 1) notwithstanding, not every member of a group bears personal responsibility for the actions of all other members of the group, especially if they did not contribute or consent to those actions.

Seems like these ought to be common sense, no?

If you see groups as capable of action, yes. Personally I see morality as a property of individuals only, or rather of actions. Groups are abstractions, they have no hands.

Though, if you hold that groups are capable of "evil", I'd modify #3 somewhat to say that membership of a group often implies condoning the actions of the group as a whole.

 

[hrodbert696]

I think it was about the "absolute" modifier, rather than him being evil.

Hmmm. I would agree that there might have been some moral positives about Hitler, certainly. I'm sure he was loyal to his friends and he obviously loved his country. But I would assume in a conversation about Hitler's moral status we can take those as read, and any question would be about his distinctive moral traits, like radical racism and genocide. I would agree that those traits are absolute moral evils, even if they arose from traits that are otherwise good like love of country.

If you see groups as capable of action, yes. Personally I see morality as a property of individuals only, or rather of actions. Groups are abstractions, they have no hands.

Though, if you hold that groups are capable of "evil", I'd modify #3 somewhat to say that membership of a group often implies condoning the actions of the group as a whole.

#3 was abstractly phrased, meant as a general principle, but to challenge what seemed to be implied in some earlier posts, to wit that "Americans" are morally at fault because Americans caused the Trail of Tears or slavery. The same might be said of Germans being responsible for the Holocaust; in my view, merely being American (or German), especially of a generation that did not perpetrate the evils in question, does not in itself imply culpability. Even in the generation that did, not all Americans were complicit in the enslavement of Africans nor all Germans in the Holocaust.

I agree that a "group" is an abstraction and that actual actions are performed by individuals. However, group identity is an abstraction that motivates individuals to act; however unreal it is in the absolute, it is real to them. People do things because of their membership in a group that they would not have done individually without the group identity to motivate them. Still, what I put as principal #3 and you put as a (rather radical) individualism still applies; not every individual in a group is necessarily liable for all actions undertaken as a group; most groups have dissenters and non-participants who nevertheless retain perceived group identity.

This might be splitting hairs, but it seems like some of the prior discussion meandered into some unsupportable positions by not considering it.

 

[Ziltoid]

This thread wasn't about Hitler, it was about portraying the whole group as if they all were as evil as Hitler... You're making up stuff here.