[Simonius]

Quote by: grandpa So people should do it clinically, vocationally?

Well... yes.

Quote by: grandpa Again, it's fascinating. How does a lack of emotion improve morality, except in fascist circles?

I dont actually understand how you can't see what it is I am trying to say, surely if we have rationalised the committing of some harsh acts such as torture or execution or killing in warfare it is best to perform such acts devoid of pleasure or rage? To me a soldier who kills because he enjoys it is a dysfunctional person who should be returned to society, a soldier who kills because he understands it needs to be done and has rationalised the act and does it without emotion is more likely to be someone who can return to society.

Quote by: grandpa If you look at fascist leaders, they overwhelmingly believe morality can be determined merely by a clinical, "scientific" social setting. There's a reason it's called a "Nazi death machine."

Well if I understand where you are coming from, and I am honest then I believe the same thing.

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
- Benito Mussolini.

Quote by: grandpa What you say fits that quote like a glove. Under fascism, how society functions (that includes morality) is determined largely by arbitrary conditions (a ruling elite), that are no doubt bureaucratic and, if they are to succeed, put checks on human emotion and regard society as nothing but a machine.

Which is partly true of all Governmental systems. The elite will naturally encourage what it deems moral. Morality is nothing but an arbritary or at least subjective system of training and conditioning that allows and regulates society.

Quote by: grandpa If acts fall outside these parameters (for example, say we express emotion while we're torturing people), then people fail to represent the objective, grand ideals they're serving and, to the leaders, become less legitimate. It happens in many workplaces, too. If people start exhibiting the strain of being used like a machine, it might show up in the employee review that their human nature is too distracting.

But it is not the role of the state or your employer to worry and fret about the frailities of an individuals mind.

Quote by: grandpa You're arguing that it's not the act, but the ends of it we should consider.

No I am not.
I am arguing the character of the person performing the act is important to my moral assessment of whether or not the act was performed in a way I regard as moral. The ends I have mentioned seperately and does not appear to have any bearing on what we are arguing now.

Quote by: grandpa In this case, the end is to seem "objective" when torturing somebody. Now, certain dictators would love citizens who meet this standard; people who can carry out orders without question and not become emotional wrecks in the process. It'd solidify authoritarian rule, perhaps even making political propaganda less necessary (though it's debatable how much of these spectacles are done to appease the people, seeing as to how self-aggrandizement has its basic emotional appeals).

I am not arguing that people should not question orders, I am arguing that if a rational sane moral person deems that torture is a neccessary evil and they had the courage of their conviction then they would carry out the act without pleasure or rage and other emotions or at least try to suppress them.

Quote by: grandpa Remember, even Hitler put a halt to public hangings, realizing that witnesses' cumbersome emotions might actually come into play and affect German pride. The general principle also applies to America's restrictions on covering war dead. Why do those exist? It's so those cumbersome emotions don't take hold. If they do, people might begin questioning what they're contributing to. In other words, people would act more like people. Grandpa h.

Thats somewhat of a tangent isn't it?