Higher rates of violence are not indicitive of moral inferiority

Affable

You can tell me what you think about this position.

I've even argued the converse on this site in the past regarding the race/crime issue. And I've come to the conclusion that was nonsense.
Here's my justification-

Violent instincts that are 'actualised' ie put to reality, are no more unethical than those that are 'converted' or 'repressed' into another form of energy.
Sure there may be noble intent behind the supression/conversion of violent instincts to constructive purposes, but it could also be classed as the concealment of fundamental truths about ones nature, a form of deception and social strategicness to benefit us, a consciously or subconsciously machiavellian trick. Theres usuall doublethink or two moral sides used in intelligence it seems to me. Put another way- what is worse living 'fast' and under a tyranny of violence, or living under a 'long game' of repressed violence under a facade of respectability?

It's hard to convey exactly what I mean, but maybe someone can get me and help elaborate, or tell me variations, or tell me you flat out disagree.
Thanks.

Joe1919

Boo or maybe hurrah I'm not sure.

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/et/et-05-00.htm

Affable

Joe1919 wrote: »

Boo or maybe hurrah I'm not sure.

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/et/et-05-00.htm

Don't really know what you're on about. I'm not a cheerleader. It's a belief not an emotion.

nyarlothothep

Ones identity is determined by how one chooses to fashion it. Its not dictated by natural inclinations per se given the capacity for reflection on this. Its funny how we often equate nature with negative aspects to the human psyche but in any case the higher functions are just as much a part of it if not moreso than the lower instincts, given that we live in a society predicated on civilized behaviour.

Moreover in terms of everyday life it would be illogical to subject another to violence if the actor was in the position of the other, given that the actor would likely not appreciate being treated violently.

I would also say that such actions are therefore more immoral and in addition said actions are distinguishable, given that the intentions and circumstances would be different.

Húrin

I agree to an extent. Whether people channel their violent instincts through harming others, or through sports, etc, is more often determined by accidents of birth and environment, than by conscious choice. That's why there seems to be more violence in urban areas deprived of good sports facilities and social outlets, and less of it in leafy suburbs.

Joe1919

Affable wrote: »

Don't really know what you're on about. I'm not a cheerleader. It's a belief not an emotion.

The Boo/Hurrah theory more or less states that how we live and what we belief or how we feel is more about emotion and feeling than actual rational decisions or choice.
Sometimes emotions like anger and violence are hard to rationalise. The fact that one feels violent or angry may have more to do with feelings, instincts and habits.
However, there often are deep rational reasons behind these 'dispositions'. One may be disposed to been angry (perhaps due to something in the past) and one carries this history to the present to make present decisions.