Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Book Club #5: Why Are We Still Talking about Ants?!
-
I'm really more into nonviolent defense of garlic naan, but whatever.
http://www.daveandjoel.com/?p=4486 -
Which one of the pigs from Animal Farm was Trotsky again?
-
Snowball.
-
Moral calculus is indeed a term that gets thrown around in philosophy classes. When I was getting my undergrad degree in philosophy I first encountered the term in a general ethics class where it was associated with J.S. Mill specifically and Utilitarianism (the idea that moral action is that which maximizes people's happiness) more generally but I'm not sure that he's the guy who coined the term. It might have originally been one of Kant's ideas, but fuck that guy.
-
Fuck Kant? Really? Why? Who do you favor when it comes to ethics?
-
Kan?
-
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN(T)!
-
My ethics are based upon the ideals of Calvin and Hobbes.
(not the philosophers) -
Mine are based on the works of one Rod Serling.
-
JonBrescia said:
Fuck Kant? Really? Why? Who do you favor when it comes to ethics?
Kant was a total d-bag. -
-
I thought Judy was a punk. :/
-
Well, now you've made me think of Matthew Lillard. Thanks guys!
-
It ain't punk rock till the punk rockers say it's punk rock.
-
Really enjoyed the discussion and debate, as always. And I REALLY enjoyed the intermission music.
I was flipping through a copy of 1Q84 that I got for Christmas last night, thinking about starting it. -
shaloop said:
Really enjoyed the discussion and debate, as always. And I REALLY enjoyed the intermission music.
I was flipping through a copy of 1Q84 that I got for Christmas last night, thinking about starting it.
That book is staring me down right now, too.
-
I mean this in the best possible way, Book Club is the best thing to listen to before I take a nap in the afternoon.
-
Man, I really need to get my hands on 1Q84, but I got both Name of The Wind and Reamde still unfinished. Also, you guys should do more serious business stuff on the Book Club, if the quality of this one was any indication.
-
I'll take that as a compliment.
-
I keep forgetting to thank everyone for their feedback. I'm glad people are enjoying these shows!
-
I feel like I get something out of these books even if I'm not participating in the club.
-
Yeah, ditto. And it was compliment.
-
I love the book club shows. It just depresses me that I constantly have like 12 things I have to read for class and can never read the accompanying books =(
-
Having stuff to read for class almost always negates pleasure reading. During law school and for about a year afterward, I think I may have read two or three books. I just couldn't make myself look at another word.
-
What part has the Lincoln/Trotsky comparison? That sounds really interesting.
In fact, are there specific sections you would recommend we read? I "curated" The Great Shark Hunt because I kind of figured that throwing the whole thing at people would be a bit much to expect. I know that this is already the abridged version, but let's say you had to pick five sections that you wanted people to read even if they ignored the whole rest of the book; what would you pick?
*****
I think my ultimate concern was that the whole thing would boil down to "why it's not racist to be scared of poor black people". I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that, but you bring up the way that this isn't what modern readers would expect from a philosophical work, and, well, there it is. Something like this, written today, by a journalist who carried a pistol, would pretty much be an explanation of why it's not racist to etc. (On the other hand maybe I just read the Internet too much.) -
Racism is actually one of the things Volmann specifically voids as a legitimate reason for violence. If you don't make it past the first 40 pages or so, and you are willing to consistently insert "black" before "men" or "youths" in the actual text you can make that argument. Doing so would be uncharitable at the least and delusional at worst. I may not be remembering the beginning of the book accurately, but I wouldn't attribute a racial bias to it based solely on recollection. So yes, you read the internet too much.
-
I'm not saying that there's a racial bias. I'm saying that I'm concerned the whole book will turn out to be an attempt to say "it's okay that I carry a gun when I go to American city centers at night" and defend against the expected DATS RACIST response. Because you don't do it, and I don't do it, but there are people who would insert "black" before "men" or "youths" where their race wasn't otherwise specified.
-
When I have a copy of the book in front of me again, I'll list some choice sections for you, RB.
As for the racial component, it features in the Defense of Race section, as you might expect. If I may be a bit presumptuous, I would guess that Vollmann would tell you that fear of poor black people really isn't susceptible to moral analysis, as we judge moral action and, when we can know it, the intent behind that action. Mere thought is generally considered insufficient. As regards racism, generally, Vollmann has no respect for it. Defense of race is authorized only in extremely strict circumstances. -
gaagh. I think my point is getting lost.
It's not defense of race. It's Vollmann attempting to defend himself from charges of racism. He's trying to say that the source of his fear is objective and rational, and isn't preconceived notions regarding the race of the people he fears. -
I don't know why anyone would charge him with racism to begin with, let alone why he would ever waste so much ink defending himself from such charges. The book really has nothing to do with him trying to justify his fear of poor brown people (which I will not even say he has). When you spend 200+ pages discussing the Bolshevik revolution and its aftermath, for example, you're nowhere near such a topic.
-
Aww, why don't ya just humor him for once. Gotta give the doggie a bone sometimes.
-
After thought and listening to more of the podcast, I was totally wrong.
****
I think you guys kind of missed something in the passage Joel quoted. I interpreted it as a wordy way to say "if you can't run away and someone is trying to kill you, then it's morally acceptable to kill them in self-defense." The "even if your reason for being there is immoral" bit is saying that self-preservation is always a moral justification for using violence to defend yourself, and that it trumps any moral culpability for actions taken in the past (although it does not absolve you of the responsibility for those actions.) What he would say is that it's not immoral for a criminal trapped in a building to shoot at the SWAT team coming in to get him. His actions that put him there and got a SWAT team after him were probably immoral, but it's not a moral transgression for him to use violent means to defend his own life.
As for the de Sade thing, I think we talked about that before on the forum, and my attitude was that it's the ultimate expression of "nothing that happens between consenting adults is immoral". Which is why it's in the book; it's a contrast between the Thai prostitute, who is an example of someone who *couldn't* give consent. -
The section Joel quoted was from the Defense of Ground portion of the Moral Calculus, which Vollmann typically invokes in defending the actions of soldiers. The problem, as we have all noted, is that the justification is very "loosey-goosey," and can thus be readily applied to a whole host of situations we may not approve of. The attempt to cap it with, "Well, but you can't just redefine your ground as suits your desires" doesn't really work for me, either.
-
I think, though, that Vollman isn't even discussing the reasons the soldiers got into that situation. He's just saying "you can't blame a trapped rat for killing to save itself". It's entirely consistent that he rejects the "just following orders" defense, despite the psychological research supporting it, because the decision wasn't being made in exigent kill-or-die circumstances. He'd say that sure, Hitler's crazy and he'll have the SS shoot you, but once someone attains a high officer rank they're probably able to take care of themselves.
-
Sorta like in Don Giovanni when Giovanni is forced to kill the Commendatore. You can say it was self defense since the Commendatore was trying to kill him, but Giovanni did kinda try to rape his daughter.
-
xenomouse said:JonBrescia said:
Fuck Kant? Really? Why? Who do you favor when it comes to ethics?
Kant was a total d-bag.
Naw, Kant just had no idea what it meant to be a human. That's all. -
Incidentally, I realize that I just cribbed from Terry Pratchett. "One of the Assassins' rules was that you should never kill somebody who couldn't defend himself. Of course, anyone worth more than twenty thousand dollars was presumed to be capable of defending himself."
I also think that Vollman isn't balancing morality in a situation--he isn't saying "Joe is moral, therefore Jack is not". It's possible for both Joe and Jack to have morally-valid reasons for employing violent means against the other. -
Indeed, he's not talking about the lead-up to the violence. My issue is that I still have huge problems with the justification even when we're just talking about "I'm being shot at, so I'm gonna shoot back." That narrow circumstance still allows for too much abuse given his justifications as written.
Also note that defense of ground is not the same as defense of self, even if one occurs concomitantly with the other. -
The problem is that the "justification" is one of Vollman's first principles; that it cannot be immoral to act in a manner that preserves your life from immediate threat.
I don't think Vollman is saying that a wrong decision is excused; he's just saying "you made an incorrect decision" rather than "you made an immoral decision". It's like the legal concepts of manslaughter and murder; the former implies error with tragic results, whereas the latter implies malicious intent.
And, sure, you can argue about whether a particular action was taken in error or in malice, but that's kind of a court-case level of argument. What Vollman wants to establish is that, even if you've taken actions that give people legitimate reasons to want to use violence on you, it is not immoral to use violence in your own defense. Vollman would say, I think, that there can never be a moral duty to permit yourself to be killed. -
And here I am, reading my old copy of O'Rourke's "All The Trouble In The World", and guess who is quoted?
Vollman said:"I'd say the biggest hope we have right now is the AIDS epidemic," Vollman told Michael Coffey in the July 13, 1992, issue of Publishers Weekly. "Maybe the best thing that could happen would be if it were to wipe out half to two-thirds of the people in the world. Then the ones who survives would be just so busy getting things together that they'd have to help each other, and in time the world would recover ecologically, too."
Not trying to say anything here, I just thought it was funny how this book I'd read 15 years ago had something that I would encounter again later. -
I wonder what Vollman would have to say about the Martin/Zimmerman situation?
-
I was thinking about that, too. I imagine he'd see it for what it is: a race inspired murder. Zimmerman violates several linchpins of Vollmann's calculus by leaving his home without cause, responding with disproportionate force, and by being motivated by the Martin's race. Any argument about this ultimately hinges on how much credit you are willing to give Zimmerman.
-
I don't think Vollman would support Zimmerman's choice to engage, but assuming Zimmerman genuinely feared for his life Vollman would probably accept his decision to shoot.
-
The moral problem for me is his choosing to engage, to leave safety voluntarily. Under traditional American law, you have a duty to flee before employing deadly force. You certainly cannot run from safety to danger and then claim self-defense under that system. I am less concerned with whether the man was or was not truly menaced; I am more concerned with statutes sanctioning what amounts to vigilantism.
-
There are people claiming that what happened was that Martin initiated the actual physical violence by attack in Zimmerman, and that therefore Zimmerman shooting Martin was justifiable self-defense. I don't think that even Vollman would stretch that far.
-
Me either, RB. Me either.
