swamp

It's a popular scene in movies, such as the smash hit film Paparazzi, which I just recently had the ... exquisite pleasure of watching ... anyway...

Our Hero is wronged, and he's wronged bad. Our Villain has endangered Hero's life and his immediate family for the purpose of personal gain. Now, as chance would have it, Villain is dangling from a cliff, held by the rapidly ripping cuff of his jeans, which is fortuitously wrapped around the peg of his motorcycle ... ok, stay with me ... so the pants are tearing, Hero comes in and grabs Villain's hand, and the scene plays out.

Well, the movie more copped out. The Hero was going to save the Villain, until the Villain reveals--while still dangling from our Hero's hand--that he intends to continue screwing Hero over after Hero saves him, only worse.

I've done this thought experiment before. When holding my oppressor from his plummet to death, my initial moral impulse is: I cannot let him go. I would no doubt suppress this impulse and do it anyway, but I think that's beside the point. The impulse seems to have some moral significance.

What I think is that our moral obligation to another person significantly changes when they oppress us, but that notion is too vague for my comfort. I do not believe in eye for an eye "morality"; when I imagine looking a man/woman in the eye, when their life depends totally on me, and dropping them off a cliff, it just feels wrong. If I knew that they would try to kill me the second they regained their footing, it would perhaps justify my act. But the feeling remains, as though I should save him and run for my own life, rather than secure my future by means of murder.

What are our moral obligations to oppressors?

Hiero5ant

I seem to recall some shaggy-haired fellow once say something like "Render unto your oppressor in Rome that which is your oppressor's in Rome, and render unto your oppressor in Heaven that which is your oppressor in Heaven's", and something else about "slaves being obedient to your masters", but somehow that just doesn't feel right.

swamp

I have shaggy hair, but I never said that And is that last bit a typo, or am I to "render my oppressor"? A bit of come-uppance in the end, after all?

Maybe I should change my question, this doesn't seem to be sparking a lot of discussion. Should my moral code be formulated such that killing is always wrong, but acting outside morality can be justified (I kill the guy, but I feel bad about it way deep down) ... OR ... should my moral code include justifications (I kill the guy, and have conditioned my mind to not feel bad about it)?

I guess maybe it's a meaningless distinction. Does it seem relevant to anyone else?

Hiero5ant

It depends, and you'll get wildly different intuitive responses if you compare, say, the most extreme actions (killing someone) against the least extreme "oppressor" (someone who chews too loud when they eat), vs. the least extreme actions (displaying an angry bumper sticker) against the most extreme oppressors (Hussein, Pol Pot, etc.)

If someone was going to "take pictures of me without permission" I don't think I'd feel like murdering him, but according to the trailers for the film it seemed like there weree a few more serious transgressions going on than that.

swamp

1. The most direct oppression I can think of is someone trying to kill me.
2. I would kill someone who was trying to kill me.
3. I would feel justified.
4. I would feel bad about it.

I think it's possible that I could get rid of 4. But what I'm saying is, does my right to self-preservation justify murder morally, or just practically? Should I try to purge myself of a guilty feeling and alter my code of morals, or should I consider it acting outside of morality?

Are morals to be an ideal that we strive to achieve, or a realistic and empirically-based system? Is my reaction (4) innate, and demonstrative of a moral absolute, "never kill"? Is the whole line of questioning asinine?

kaelcarp

I don't think I could ever kill someone, even if justified, and not feel bad about it. Even cops who kill people who are in the middle of committing haneous acts are often scarred by it. I have a lot of empathy by nature. However, if someone was going to kill me or do something terrible to me or my loved ones, I would do it and live with the guilt.

jonesg

THats why spiritual concepts are paradoxical, they NEVER "feel right", but they are and when applied the answer proves them right.
What Feels right is often wrong.

Its in the Lord's Prayer.
Forgive us our trespasses AS we forgive our trespassers.

"As" being the timeline for when that something will happen.
Going to the former enemy and amending the harm done frees a person and something unexpected happens.
Its something which is repeated in the bible here and there, constant forgiveness keeps a soul free of the resulting insanity of anger and hate.

Aristophanes

better to live with the guilt of killing an oppressor, then living with the guilt of allowing an oppressor to kill the innocent. evil is when good men do nothing.

evil is the absense of empathy.

jonesg

This is then another perfect example where having a faith in God would help tremendously.
With Faith,if I have to kill and have moral foundation in doing so , then there is no guilt except that which I choose to drape over myself in my own self pity. It would be unpleasant but less so than watching Charlie Manson wipe a family out.

Guilt is how I used to harm myself, Pride is how I directed that harm at others. Same thing , both are a lie.

Therefore ,with God , I would have no guilt whatsoever because there would be no guilt because I rejected the lie my ego would have me believe.

swamp

And so my question: is there preferability or even meaningful difference between 1) holding a moral absolute and choosing to act outside of it (thereafter justifying it to oneself, or relying on God to forgive the transgression) and 2) attempting to construct a moral code which accounts for these exceptions.