Syrian fakefugee injures 31 in Essen

[Bomb#20]

A moral person shall not harm a human being, nor through inaction allow a human being to come to harm.

Show your work.

If you want to channel Isaac Asimov, I'll channel E. O. Wilson: nice theory, wrong species.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or do you just not think about any of this, and declare that as long as it happens out of your sight, it is OK to pretend it's not happening at all?

Are you merely unwilling to see that your equivocating between refugees (for whom repatriation is life threatening) and other resident non-citizens (for whom it is a mere inconvenience) is causing you to advocate for horiffic cruelty? Would understanding that cause harm to your self-image as a "good person"? Because it really should.

Fundamentally, it comes down to how much you should be willing to tolerate misbehavior of those you are trying to help.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A moral person shall not harm a human being, nor through inaction allow a human being to come to harm.

Show your work.

If you want to channel Isaac Asimov, I'll channel E. O. Wilson: nice theory, wrong species.

And note that that instruction applies to those who are basically slaves.

Free men are not compelled to come to the aid of others at a risk to themselves.

 

[bilby]

Or do you just not think about any of this, and declare that as long as it happens out of your sight, it is OK to pretend it's not happening at all?

Are you merely unwilling to see that your equivocating between refugees (for whom repatriation is life threatening) and other resident non-citizens (for whom it is a mere inconvenience) is causing you to advocate for horiffic cruelty? Would understanding that cause harm to your self-image as a "good person"? Because it really should.

Fundamentally, it comes down to how much you should be willing to tolerate misbehavior of those you are trying to help.

No, it doesn't. It comes down to how severely you are willing to punish that misbehaviour.

Civilised people do not advocate disproportionate punishments (and nor do they entrust punishments to foreign proxies).

If a refugee commits a crime, how is it in any way just, that he be punished more harshly for that crime than a citizen who had done the exact same thing?

Are you seriously suggesting that by helping someone, you entitle yourself to choose to harm them excessively should they later fail to comply with your standards?

That sounds like the sort of twisted immoral nonsense we hear from churches - it's a master-and-servant standard of morality from the middle ages, in which 'kindness' is merely a means to power by an aristocrat over a person of lesser rank, and carries no altruistic motive other than as a figleaf.

Treating a distressed person with kindness and dignity doesn't make you their master. If your kindness has strings attached, it was never kindness at all.

 

[bilby]

Free men are not compelled to come to the aid of others at a risk to themselves.

Of course not. They need only do so if they wish to consider themselves good.

If you can live with yourself after choosing to ignore someone's plight to save your own precious hide, then that's between you and your conscience. If you believe abject cowardice to be a virtue, then you can probably persuade yourself that you are even being noble.

Probably.

 

[Bomb#20]

Or do you just not think about any of this, and declare that as long as it happens out of your sight, it is OK to pretend it's not happening at all?

Are you merely unwilling to see that your equivocating between refugees (for whom repatriation is life threatening) and other resident non-citizens (for whom it is a mere inconvenience) is causing you to advocate for horiffic cruelty? Would understanding that cause harm to your self-image as a "good person"? Because it really should.

Fundamentally, it comes down to how much you should be willing to tolerate misbehavior of those you are trying to help.

No, it doesn't. It comes down to how severely you are willing to punish that misbehaviour.

Civilised people do not advocate disproportionate punishments (and nor do they entrust punishments to foreign proxies).

If a refugee commits a crime, how is it in any way just, that he be punished more harshly for that crime than a citizen who had done the exact same thing?

Are you seriously suggesting that by helping someone, you entitle yourself to choose to harm them excessively should they later fail to comply with your standards?

That sounds like the sort of twisted immoral nonsense we hear from churches - it's a master-and-servant standard of morality from the middle ages, in which 'kindness' is merely a means to power by an aristocrat over a person of lesser rank, and carries no altruistic motive other than as a figleaf.

Treating a distressed person with kindness and dignity doesn't make you their master. If your kindness has strings attached, it was never kindness at all.

"What is broken in your understanding, that lets you pretend, or believe, or hope", that such a line of reasoning is consistent with your previous argument?

Hey, maybe try not punishing some people more harshly than others, for the same level of offense!

That it is politically easy and/or convenient to impose a penalty of death or torture (by proxy) does not render that penalty less cruel, or more morally acceptable.

Your approach is medieval - why not just have capital punishment for even petty crimes, and if anyone suggests that this is too severe, simply say "Hey, maybe try behaving yourself if you don't want to be hanged!"

That's exactly what you are doing here; I wonder if you have even realised it.

The thing is I do not believe that being a refugee should give them a pass for committing wrongdoing.

Nor do I.

Typically any substantial wrongdoing gets you deported.

Which is fine, if you are (like most resident non-citizens) not a refugee.
...
It is NOT "giving them a pass for comitting wrongdoing" to sentence someone to the exact same punishment that any citizen would get for the same offence. And there is no moral justification for sending such a person to be tortured or killed, as well as, or instead of, punishing them in accordance with local laws.

How can you not grasp this? What is broken in your understanding, that lets you pretend, or believe, or hope, that such a deportation of a refugee would not be an unjust cruelty?

Do you not grasp that refugees are not the same as other resident non-citizens in terms of the consequences that repatriation will bring?

Do you think that killing or torturing someone isn't your fault, if you merely turned them over to someone else knowing that it eould happen, but didn't actively participate?
...
Are you merely unwilling to see that your equivocating between refugees (for whom repatriation is life threatening) and other resident non-citizens (for whom it is a mere inconvenience) is causing you to advocate for horiffic cruelty? Would understanding that cause harm to your self-image as a "good person"? Because it really should.

In that light, let's look again at your current theory of morality...

No, it doesn't. It comes down to how severely you are willing to punish that misbehaviour.

Civilised people do not advocate disproportionate punishments (and nor do they entrust punishments to foreign proxies).

If a refugee commits a crime, how is it in any way just, that he be punished more harshly for that crime than a citizen who had done the exact same thing?

Are you seriously suggesting that by helping someone, you entitle yourself to choose to harm them excessively should they later fail to comply with your standards?

That sounds like the sort of twisted immoral nonsense we hear from churches - it's a master-and-servant standard of morality from the middle ages, in which 'kindness' is merely a means to power by an aristocrat over a person of lesser rank, and carries no altruistic motive other than as a figleaf.

Treating a distressed person with kindness and dignity doesn't make you their master. If your kindness has strings attached, it was never kindness at all.

Well, if an economic migrant commits a crime, how is it in any way just, that he be punished more harshly for that crime than a citizen who had done the exact same thing? When a citizen gets jail for a burglary, how is it in any way just that a resident non-citizen (for whom repatriation is a mere inconvenience) gets jail plus inconvenience for a burglary? While we're at it, how is it in any way just that a French economic migrant be sent to France to be reduced to a French standard of living while a Guatemalan one is sent to Guatemala to be reduced to a Guatemalan standard of living? Do you not grasp that resident non-citizens are not the same as other resident non-citizens in terms of the consequences that repatriation will bring? Do you think that impoverishing someone and maybe killing him through lack of adequate social services isn't your fault, if you merely turned them over to someone else knowing that it could happen, but didn't actively participate? By helping someone escape grinding poverty (but not murder), do you entitle yourself to choose to harm them excessively should they later fail to comply with your standards?

If we went by the standard of morality you're advocating here, we couldn't deport anyone, ever. So which is it? Is any substantial wrongdoing getting you deported "fine, if you are (like most resident non-citizens) not a refugee", or is it verboten on the alter of "how is it in any way just, that he be punished more harshly for that crime than a citizen who had done the exact same thing?"?

You're complaining Loren's approach makes citizens masters, and refugees servants; but your approach here makes the self-congratulation-as-social-policy anointed* masters, and citizens servants. It's no surprise you'd go to the Three Laws of Robotics for your moral inspiration. Nietzsche talked a lot about the differences between "master morality" and "slave morality". "Master morality" is a distillation of ancient Greek thought, "slave morality" a distillation of Christianity. What they have in common is, those are both pre-Enlightenment. They're both the sort immoral nonsense we hear from churches.

(* Sowell allusion.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a refugee commits a crime, how is it in any way just, that he be punished more harshly for that crime than a citizen who had done the exact same thing?

Are you seriously suggesting that by helping someone, you entitle yourself to choose to harm them excessively should they later fail to comply with your standards?

That sounds like the sort of twisted immoral nonsense we hear from churches - it's a master-and-servant standard of morality from the middle ages, in which 'kindness' is merely a means to power by an aristocrat over a person of lesser rank, and carries no altruistic motive other than as a figleaf.

Treating a distressed person with kindness and dignity doesn't make you their master. If your kindness has strings attached, it was never kindness at all.

This isn't as clear cut as you make it.

I am not saying that it makes you their master, but that the helper is entitled to withdraw the help if they are mistreated. Helping does not mandate that you continue to help.

This is another manifestation of the same flaw the left consistently commits: thinking a bad outcome is automatically the fault of the side in power for failing to find a better answer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're complaining Loren's approach makes citizens masters, and refugees servants; but your approach here makes the self-congratulation-as-social-policy anointed* masters, and citizens servants. It's no surprise you'd go to the Three Laws of Robotics for your moral inspiration. Nietzsche talked a lot about the differences between "master morality" and "slave morality". "Master morality" is a distillation of ancient Greek thought, "slave morality" a distillation of Christianity. What they have in common is, those are both pre-Enlightenment. They're both the sort immoral nonsense we hear from churches.

(* Sowell allusion.)

Thank you for explaining it better than I was managing.