Category: Violence

What the Game of Thrones Ending Really Means

6/2/2019

Some tyrants come as liberators. That is the final twist in Game of Thrones, a show known for it's shocking plot twists. This is what George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire is ultimately about; what war really does to people, the difficultly of just rule, the inability to overcome personal moral failings, and the cyclical nature of tyranny.

Game of Thrones, the show based on the Song of Ice and Fire novels, is a bit more about putting spectacle over story. But Queen Daenerys as the final villain, rather than Cersei or the Night King, is George R. R. Martin's surprise ending, make no mistake about it. Viewers were naturally horrified to watch a sympathetic character turn bad, but that's the whole point! We were tricked in order to get us to understand the cruelty and horror of war by watching a character we knew and maybe liked become a tyrant.

This isn't just my hot take on it, either. George R. R. Martin was a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War. He acknowledges that the perception of war as something glorious is a problem. Though not a radical pacifist, he states in this interesting clip that his goal with A Song of Ice and Fire, is to show the true cost of war.

Violence under the guise of "breaking the wheel," promoting democracy, human rights, and most other justifications is still abominable. That is why we should be looking for non-violent solutions to problems rather than perpetually glorifying war and violent conflict.

2 Comments

5 Things That You Need To Be Happy According to Cicero

2/20/2018

3 Comments

What do we really need to be happy? According to Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero, not very much.

In a letter Cicero wrote while trying to arrange a visit with his new friend, fellow scholar Marcus Terentius Varro, he states: "If you have a garden in your library, we will want for nothing."[1]

Cicero and Varro were rich. Both owned various estates across Italy. He could have asked for, and expected, all of the luxuries common to his class - silk sheets, scented oils, the finest food and wine. Why did Cicero place such high importance on the garden and the library then? What is truly necessary for us to flourish in life?

3 Comments

When Being Too Nice Could Get You Killed

6/6/2016

3 Comments

What does being a nice person mean to you? Virtue ethicists believe that politeness is the basis of all moral interactions. I think of niceness as a synonym for being a kind, helpful, good-natured, pro-social person, and also as a general way of approaching the world and avoiding interpersonal conflict. But what if being nice doesn't always work so well? What if predatory people use niceness to entrap the unsuspecting? What if being too polite to the wrong person could even get you killed?

Gavin De Becker is a former law enforcement officer who has developed a compelling hypothesis about the "wild brain." De Becker virtually stands alone in the field of risk management because of his unique hypothesis about the psychology of human conflict and predation based on case studies from his career.

Violence, although relatively rare in much of the developed world, is a part of the human condition. It is not going away any time soon. According to De Becker, millions of years of evolution have equipped us with the intuitive ability to detect pre-attack indicators when violence is immanent, or when we are in danger.

Philosophers spend a lot of time using reason. Reason is the much celebrated but slow, plodding, methodical product of left brained thinking. It is wonderful for tackling complex problems and for everyday use, but not great at handling immediate threats to our safety and well being. According to De Becker, we have another, primal, lighting fast mental faculty for avoiding danger - intuition.

Not so happily for us, humans are the only animals in nature who routinely ignore intuitive hits about danger in our environments, often using reason to deconstruct what our intuition is telling us - sometimes with devastating consequences. Here is how to harness the protective gift of intuition that we have inherited from the wild brain of our ancestors.

3 Comments

Solomon Kane: Must See Fantasy Flick About the Surprising Paradox of Nonviolence

2/19/2016

10 Comments

While doing research for this post, I came across the unusual phrase "A lasting peace, through the judicious use of the spear." This phrase perfectly sums up the salient moral message in Solomon Kane, an independent Sword and Sorcery film about a Puritan vigilante sworn to fight evil in 16th Century England.

Far from being another film full of gratuitous violence, Solomon Kane explores a rather profound ethical question: when does adherence to nonviolence trump the moral and personal obligation to protect your life, or the lives of your family, from immanent harm?

Solomon Kane offers an unexpected axiom on the paradox of nonviolent philosophy. Pacifism is undoubtedly a philosophy arising from a selfless desire to not harm others. Pacifists view all violence as a moral failing. But paradoxically, the failure to protect others from immanent rape, murder, etc, when in a position to do so, leads to them being harmed. Under certain circumstances, nonviolence is actually a selfish philosophy, rather than a selfless philosophy.

In a world where evil people rape and murder, forceful opposition to violence is not only pragmatic, it necessary and moral. The most pragmatic and ethical position is nonaggression, rather than nonviolence.

10 Comments

6 Reasons Why It Is Wrong to Spank Kids - Number 4 May Shock You

10/20/2015

2 Comments

I was spanked as a child, but my husband and I don't plan on spanking our son. We have determined that spanking is not ethical or ok for our child and family. Children are people with rights of their own, and they should be treated with respect.

Spanking, or corporal punishment, is the intentional use of physical pain to control a child's behavior. Spanking carries more of a social stigma today than it once did. Corporal punishment is banned in public schools in 31 states. As of 2015, corporal punishment is actually illegal in 30 countries. However in recent polls of American parents, up to 70 percent spanked their children.

Corporal punishment is an important moral issue, because it is widespread among Americans and in the developing world. But why are many parents willing to sanction behaviors towards children that they would never sanction towards adults? Why is there a double standard at play when it comes to hitting kids, who are the smallest and most dependent of people?

Many parents who were spanked as children believe that it is fine to spank kids because they themselves turned out ok. However this is a poor argument and a logical fallacy (appeal to tradition or common practice). Thanks to various academic studies, much more is known today about about the psychological and behavioral consequences of spanking than was known in the past, and none of it is good. Parents should carefully consider the case against spanking before deciding whether or not to spank their children as a form of discipline:

2 Comments

Evil in the Hearts of Men: Pacifism and Ethics in Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire

4/3/2014

0 Comments

HBO's acclaimed Game of Thrones is often regarded as being one of the best shows on television. In anticipation of the Season 4 premier this Sunday, I am focusing on the popular epic fantasy series which the show is based on, A Song of Ice and Fire, by George R. R. Martin.

The books are known for portraying an exceptionally violent rendition of life in the Middle Ages, to which many people ascribe the famous Hobbesian maxim, “Life is nasty, brutish, and short.” What may not be readily apparent to both readers and TV show viewers, is that there is strong evidence suggesting that Martin is in fact actually trying to convey a non-aggressive or pacifist message, more consistent with his own conscientious beliefs, than a cynical or Hobbesian perspective.

In creative writing, the gold standard is “show, don't tell.” Martin does this so well and so subtly, that many people are not even aware of the novel's pacifist themes. In fact, many readers assume the opposite. Both the novel and the TV show have often been criticized for being too violent. There is a good deal of rage, bloodshed, war, cruelty, death, tragedy, rape, incest, profanity and sex. On account of this fact, it's no wonder that some derive a cynical or “everyone is evil” mindset from the books and show. However, Martin has stated that he wants to make A Song of Ice and Fire realistic like the Middle Ages and real life. Some people tend to mistake this realism for proof of the novel's amorality, but it is not actually amoral.

Ironically, you don't often come to higher order understanding about non-aggression or ethics by refusing to address the fact that people are capable of aggressive and unethical acts, and that there are consequences to such actions. (Before you continue reading, please note that this essay contains mild book 1-3 spoilers, and Season 1-4 TV show spoilers.)

0 Comments

Why Every Political and Economic System Eventually Fails, and What You Can Do About It

2/21/2014

6 Comments

We may believe that some political parties, economics systems or types of government are inherently more moral or pragmatic than others. This essay will not be refuting that claim. Rather, I argue that regardless of the organic value of various economic and political systems, they are all eventually doomed to corruption, oligarchy and failure if the people involved in them are not ethical. In other words; ethics always come first.

According to Aristotle, the Nichomachian view is that we must look at virtue and character in politics. Governments, political parties, communities, and economic systems are extensions of us. They reflect our values and our behaviors. Ethics is the lynchpin on which everything in human society depends. If we are unethical personally, and if society is unethical in the aggregate, then of course we will never have a moral system, no matter how authoritarian or anti-authoritarian, capitalist or communist, left or right the system is inherently.

Changing the system as a whole won't solve the underlying problem until we get at the root of the specific causes; namely our own behavior. People who are unethical will continue to be unethical regardless of political party, after a revolution, change of government, or in an alternate economic paradigm. We must treat the disease itself, not just the symptoms. We are the source of the problem, and as such, we must change. Consider the following quote from The Matrix, "It is not the spoon that bends, but yourself."

The solution is to change yourself. Adopt and practice a balanced code of ethics, educate yourself and others, and act locally in your own community to effect positive change.

6 Comments

Why Radical Feminists and Radical Men's Rights Advocates Are Both Wrong

1/9/2014

1 Comment

There is a lot to dislike about the radical, or extreme feminist and men's rights movements. Both believe that they are combating sexism against their respective groups. I argue that by focusing on gender difference as the source of every ill, they are instead promoting a divisive, dominance based paradigm. Both groups tend to have flawed and irrational world views, and to promote a dualistic ideology of dominion and victimization, rather than one of equality, mutual respect and partnership.

The feminists of the the 20th century helped to level the playing field for women in the West. Unfortunately, the gender struggle of the past decades has radicalized a subset of individuals. We need to realize that we will not get equality by pointing fingers and complaining about which gender is or has been the biggest victim of oppression. The result of the present situation, is that both genders currently face sexism in society; women because of troglodyte viewpoints, and men because of feminist backlash.

Perceiving everything in terms of gender difference is a method of divide an conquer, which keeps people from focusing on our common humanity, and from having empathy for one another. The problem lies specifically with the age-old dominion and oppression based world view. Both the extremes radical feminism and radical men's rights, matriarchy and patriarchy, imply an unethical domination of one gender by the other, leading to even more misunderstanding.

Both matriarchy and patriarchy represent a failure of the ancient egalitarian ideal. Contrary to popular belief, patriarchy was not always the dominant paradigm throughout history, and it need not be going forward. Patriarchy is flawed, and matriarchy is also flawed. Neither men nor women should game the system to their advantage, or try to unethically assert power or superiority over other people.

There is another way; egalitarianism. Egalitarians acknowledge that every person, male and female, has equal innate rights. No individual or gender is entitled to special privileges, because that would imply that one individual or group has rights that other humans do not have. The result of true egalitarianism, not one which is forced on people from the top down, is a partnership or equalitarian world view, where each gender's contributions are naturally viewed as equally important to society and part of a larger, all-encompassing whole. Each gender balances and compliments, rather than conflicts with the other.

What does this have to do with ethics, you ask? Much! The true source of domination does not emanate from some abstraction, such as patriarchy or society, but rather, it originates from within the individual. I concede that while oppressive societies can limit free will, individuals choose to promote domination or freedom by virtue of their beliefs and actions. People can choose daily to be ethical, not to use their free will to dominate others, and to eliminate any arrogant and irrational beliefs in their own gender's superiority. Then we will have truly equal partnership and respect between the sexes.

1 Comment

What Everyone Needs to Know About Violence and Self-Defense

12/12/2013

0 Comments

In my experience, many people do not have a well thought out position regarding interpersonal violence and self defense. The prevalent attitude seems to vary between two extremes; a naive type of pacifism on one hand, or a let's get em’ type of aggression on the other. Both positions are unreasonable in different ways. This post provides a deeper examination of the ethics of violence and self defense. When properly understood, non-aggression and forceful self-defense are not morally incompatible.

A careful study reveals that even thinkers credited with advocating pacifism, including Gandhi, Thoreau, and Martin Luther King, and at least one Buddhist sect, advocate self-defensive force as moral, necessary and courageous. This makes sense, of course, because the need for self defense will persist until everyone in the world non-aggressive. Therefore, the most pragmatic and ethical position is one of conscious non-initiation of violence, which at the same time does not preclude forceful self-defense if necessary.

0 Comments

Breaking Bad's Secret Message: Actions Have Consequences

12/5/2013

0 Comments

Most people watch television to be entertained. AMC’s popular series Breaking Bad, is a rare show which entertains and does something infinity more important; it examines serious moral issues in grave detail. Vince Gilligan, the creator of the show, stated, “If there’s a larger lesson to Breaking Bad, it's that actions have consequences.”

The actions in question often relate to the downward spiral of the show’s anti-hero, Walter White, who after a cancer diagnosis, goes from ordinary high school chemistry teacher to brilliant and violent meth kingpin. While overtly a modern Western about science, drugs, and criminality, Breaking Bad is secretly a moral treatise.

Widely touted as one of the best television series of all time, Breaking Bad concluded in September 2013. The show has also been criticized for its grittiness, cynicism and lack of humanity. There may be certain times when viewers will inevitably feel cynical because the show accurately portrays human failings, consequences and the tendency for self deceit. All moral choices are human, but some are just not pro-humanity. The show's deeper purpose is to realistically explore overarching themes of moral choice, personal conduct, responsibility, self-deception, and karma.

Note: if you have not seen the entire series, there are spoilers below.

0 Comments

<<Previous

What the Game of Thrones Ending Really Means

5 Things That You Need To Be Happy According to Cicero

When Being Too Nice Could Get You Killed

Solomon Kane: Must See Fantasy Flick About the Surprising Paradox of Nonviolence

6 Reasons Why It Is Wrong to Spank Kids - Number 4 May Shock You

Evil in the Hearts of Men: Pacifism and Ethics in Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire

Why Every Political and Economic System Eventually Fails, and What You Can Do About It

Why Radical Feminists and Radical Men's Rights Advocates Are Both Wrong

What Everyone Needs to Know About Violence and Self-Defense

Breaking Bad's Secret Message: Actions Have Consequences

Growing in Goodness

About Me:

Most Popular Blog Posts:

Watch Common Sense Ethics On YouTube:

Topics:

Archives:

Book of the Month:

Personal Growth Resources:

Understanding and Applying Stoic Ethics In Modern Life:

Follow Common Sense Ethics on Pinterest:

Join the Stoic Parents Facebook Group:

Growing in Goodness

Don't miss a post!

About Me:

Most Popular Blog Posts:

Watch Common Sense Ethics On YouTube:

Topics:

Archives:

​Personal Growth Resources:

Understanding and Applying Stoic Ethics In Modern Life:

​Follow Common Sense Ethics on Pinterest:

​Join the Stoic Parents Facebook Group:

Personal Growth Resources:

Follow Common Sense Ethics on Pinterest:

Join the Stoic Parents Facebook Group: