Quote:
"indeed i was wording myself wrongly there. i wasnt trying to challenge this man was innocent, i was trying to challenge the idea that his innocence has any implications whatsoever. my apologies."
I think his innocence does have implications. If you're going to argue that taking a man's life is a less harmful option than risking the chance that he is about to kill many others, you must be prepared to acknowledge the implications of his innocence (the fact that the others were not actually about to die) when you discover the truth. The implication that there was no actual imminent danger, that your perception was wrong. The implication that you acted in a way that resulted in more harm - due to your taking a gamble, rather than taking the time to learn the actual circumstances or opting for a non-lethal response.
Quote:
"i do believe i said asmuch that i agree 'innocence' as an indicator of 'this man didnt perform this action' is a useful concept. if that was what you were trying to say, I agree. "
Ok. Innocence isn't irrelevant. It is a useful concept. See my previous point.
Quote:
"there you go on about proving again. at the moment im writing this, ive already typed out god knows how many words of reply, but it all feels rather pointless if we still disagree on such a fundamental level."
I agree. I can't imagine pursuing this discussion much further. See my other point regarding suspecting vs. knowing.
Quote:
"regardless, i don’t think its all that unreasonable to allow officers to fire on people that ignore repeated orders. if you’re unable to follow such basic orders as: put your hands in the air, you should be well supervised, probably in some locked room. Interaction with society requires personal responsibility. Take this responsibility or accept the consequences."
IMO, whether or not they should fire on people is dependent on the specific circumstances. Provided there isn't any doubt about a persons capacity and intention to harm others, provided there aren't other circumstances that suggest that someone isn't a clear and present danger (see my later point about speculation as to why a terrorist would have run from the plane), I agree. If there is any room for doubt, I think officers should opt for a non-lethal response.
See my later point about personal responsibility and your inconsistency.
Quote:
"no, it served to outline why i think alpizars illness was irrelevant."
It's not irrelevant in the context in which I made the statement.
Also, it wasn't irrelevant where your characterisation of his stupidity was concerned. Stupid would be understanding the largely negative consequences of a particular course of action and taking it anyway. Clearly, mentally ill people are unable to make such judgements in a rational manner.
Quote:
"i understand the meaning of both words, and that they are both extremes of one continuum of certainty. the shades of gray might not be that important in day-to-day use, but in a legal setting, they are (or atleast should be) everything."
I don't agree that they are part of the same continuity. I think they are two separate states - see my later definitions.
I don't think we want life-and-death decisions to be made based on shades of grey. We want certainty.
Quote:
"if that was the case i would fully agree with you. however, visual evidence is not everything. If (if, mind) someone pleads guilty himself (for instance, by claiming to have a bomb), even if the rest of the case is very very weak, that should still be enough to take action."
It definitely warrants action, eg. immediate investigation, but should it always warrant an immediate death sentence if there are other circumstances suggestive of a person's innocence? If there is any doubt, wouldn't it be best to respond with a course of action that isn't final (eg. one that doesn't involve killing people, who can't be brought back to life later on)?
Quote:
"do not act as if you do not see the parallel. framing is ofcource ridiculous in the case of a microwave, but when considering proving in the context of a legal system, which hypotheticals aside, we are talking about, its always a very real possibility."
I don't know how you could argue that someone who is obviously trying to harm others and has the capacity to do so (by pointing a gun at them and shooting) has been framed, eg. in the context of a bank robbery. Yes, it is certainly possible that others could be framed. I don't see the significance of this argument - either there is or isn't a clear *provable* threat at the time. See my previous point about the importance of varying our responses according to different circumstances.
Quote:
"it did? And you accuse me of being too brief…"
I didn't expand on my assertion because it is self-evident. See your previous point - you admit yourself that framing is ridiculous in the case of a microwave. See my later example about personal responsibility and your inconsistency. See my comments regarding your original claim to be guided by rational beliefs concerning the minimisation of harm (the 'greater good'), but your refusal to personally sacrifice for this goal, your acceptance of others being sacrificed. Your judgements appear to be based on abitrary whims, not consistently applied principles.
Quote:
"You are the one taking the liberty of calling it justice, of labelling him as bad, and implicitly, yourself as good.
The winners write history. its always the same story, they were just, and the losers were the bad guys. no wonder good always prevails, uh?"
In the context of a moral system, people who kill others for reasons other than self-defense are bad people. In the context of a justice system, justice is served when someone gets put behind bars for such crimes. There's little point you challenging the appropriateness of these terms (eg. justice) by taking them out of context.
Quote:
"yeah, it involves a weighting of the pros and cons of the ones making the laws. clearly it doesn’t weight the pros and cons of the murderer at all, since he gets screwed no matter what. its purely selfish, dont deny it. not that i say there is anything wrong with the selfish act of trying to keep yourself alive though, everyone does it."
He only gets screwed if he screws someone else first. Before that, we all should get the same treatment. I don't like your implication that going around killing people is something which people are entitled to do, that it's selfish to negate the harm caused by such domineering people. We've determined that all people have privileges until they take away those of others. I want people to share the same entitlements as me - no more, no less. That is not a selfish position. If some people try to take more than their fair share *of their own free will*, they forfeit their rights so that others, who are more responsible (eg. cause less harm), can have theirs. All murderers have to do is refrain from being selfish themselves.
Quote:
"Im not talking about ‘ha ha ha’ kind of responses. That’s more schadenfruede than selfishness. Im talking about using the term justice for a situation where one man gets nothing, so that others can have everything, kind of selfishness."
The others don't want *everything*, they just don't want murderers to impinge on their right to live. I think you've got a bizarre definition of selfish.
Quote:
"the 'collective' creates laws to protect the interests of the 'collective'. the collective is selfish, which is no coincidence: its made up of selfish individuals. don’t try to muddy the waters by making it seem as if you create laws just to protect others. You share the collective benefit aswell as the collective selfishness."
I agree that I share the benefits, but I don't see how taking action to counteract the unprovoked selfishness of others is selfish. Clearly the only thing that we can do in your system that isn't selfish is to accept other peoples brutality eg. try to runaway, or lay down and die. See my previous point. I don't agree that we're all sinners by default.
Quote:
"everyone DOES have these attitudes.
We DO have different rules for murderers and non-murderers. well, but it was their own choice to become a murder you say, everyone who murders gets the same treatment, so its ok, right?
I can say the same about ignoring orders. the same rule for everyone: if you ignore orders, you should get shot. if you don’t want to get shot you simply shouldn’t ignore orders.
its the same thing."
See my previous point about counteracting the acts of the selfish. I don't believe that is equivalent to indulging in an unprovoked act of selfishness.
I don't agree that people who disobey orders should always be shot - see my previous point about how we should adapt our response to the circumstances. What about disobeying orders to kill other people who aren't a known threat? Should you get shot for that? According to your criteria, you should.
Quote:
"yes, but they dont matter for the discussion between you and me. they might aswell be robots. This discussion isaboutwhat laws we can and cannot/shouldn’t create."
You said people have personal responsibility (see above). That includes the responsibility to disobey orders, regardless of who created them. This can't be the case if they are robots.
I find it amazing that you will say one thing when it suits an argument you are making eg. 'a murderer couldn't help it, he gets screwed no matter what' (which implies a lack of responsibility), but will say another entirely when it doesn't, eg. 'people make a choice not to follow police orders' (which implies responsibility). This is why I have said that you are inconsistent. I feel like I'm debating someone who changes their opinion every five minutes. You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
"laws will be created in the interest of those creating them.
bombers should die before 'innocent' people do, because that is the creature we are. we put our own lives above those of others. justice is merely a concept created to justify the actions of those writing history. its especially usefull in todays world, where people have a great aversion to admitting to what kind of selfish creature they are. there is nothing 'just' about it. it was you vs. them, and you won. that’s all there is to it."
See my earlier point about counteracting acts of unprovoked selfishness.
Quote:
"what? how do you even know they were using live ammo if they didnt hit you? as i said, maybe it was a rubber bullet? maybe they were missing on purpose, only firing a warning sign? THOSE ARE VERY REAL POSSIBILITIES! yet you are already sure they were trying to kill. gee, those aren’t very high standards of proof. it seems like reaching conclusions before a judge has wrestled through all the facts is something you are not so aversed to afterall."
I can only reiterate my previous statement that if there is any doubt, the police should opt for a non-lethal response. In cases where it is obvious (provable) that a person possesses a real weapon and they demonstrate malicious intent, it may be acceptable to use lethal force.
Quote:
"it depends on how you got the suspicion they had a gun. is it just your paranoia, or, for instance, did the person in question tell you so himself? Big difference."
Not really. If you actually saw the gun, I'd agree there was a big difference. See my previous point regarding adapting our responses to specific circumstances (eg. the implications of a "terrorist" moving away from "the target").
Quote:
"it could have been clear what i said without the context of the first sentence, but by merely looking at the second."
I was by no means sure of the precise meaning of your comments, despite that possibility.
Quote:
"however, i do agree i could have worded myself more clearly. nonetheless, id advice you to read a little more thoroughly next time before you pull out the insults. If this are the standards of proof you wield before commencing with the judging, I think potential bombers are better off with me running the show."
Oh, bravo! We're participating in a leisurely discussion here - noone's life is at stake. I think that has something to do with my carefree attitude.
You don't even check that they have something that looks remotely like a bomb to begin with...and unlike you, I would not use lethal force if there was any doubt about the man's guilt.
Quote:
"Hows about YOU stop dodging the point and answer my question: how in the name of hell can i answer that without making the false assumption that he is sane?!"
Eelco, all I'm asking you to do is *speculate*. You can speculate about the behaviour of a terrorist on a plane without assuming the man in this specific case is sane. If he had been a terrorist intent on hi-jacking or blowing up the plane, why would he have left it? Assume he's sitting there on the plane with the bomb. I ask the question, because assuming there's no credible answer to it, that suggests that there were other circumstances that the air marshalls knew of that gave the impression that he wasn't actually a bomber, despite anything he said (which he didn't BTW). I'm not asking you to make any false assumptions. You're the one dodging the point - I'd say because this is an acknowledgement you don't want to make.
Quote:
"its not so much important what i want, its important what the majority of people want. well, define important, but thats whats going to happen. people demonstrate time and time again to value their own life over anything else, and that of others is hardly worth shit to them.
why would you expect these people to create laws that take the life of potential bombers in equal consideration to their own?"
Because not all potential (suspected) bombers, according to appallingly low standards of proof, are actual bombers? Some of them are innocent (of being a bomber) people. It's in the interests of these people to adopt a position that would safeguard their own rights if they were unwittingly drawn into a similar incident. It is just (moral) for them to exercise their own rights to defend other peoples.
Quote:
"your 'objective assertions' didnt seem to serve any other point than elevating your feeling of self-righteousness."
Oh joy, yet another comment designed to dodge the point...you asked me to summarise it for you: the point was (and is) that I don't think it appropriate that you call the mentally ill 'stupid'. Deal with that, not anything else you think *I* said.
Quote:
"this only makes me more honest than you."
See my previous point about counteracting unprovoked acts of selfishness. I don't agree with you.
Quote:
"no, they are only derogatory in a derogatory context. there is nothing wrong in my world with noting that mentally ill people are more prone to performing stupid acts. i never let PC get in the way of simple observations."
But that's entirely the point! They are not stupid acts if the person performing them is incapable of determining that they there are associated negative consequences and are unable of their own volition to rationally choose not to do the acts in question. You might think the acts are amusing (!?), but they are not stupid.
Quote:
"a strawman is where i reword your argument in such a way that its no longer the same argument you originally made, then attack it. i never even implied anywhere that my hypothetical situation was your argument/position. it was nothing but a way to show how i felt about the results of inaction: a factor that i felt was blatantly absent in your theory of bloodhydrodynamics."
I understand what a strawman is. You first say you never implied anywhere that your "hypothetical" situation was my argument/position, yet you go on to say that your way of showing how you felt about the things you perceived my theories overlooked ('blatantly absent') was to give an example "demonstrating" the results of inaction. Whether you intended it or not, that implied that there was something lacking ('absent') in my system. It follows that you were attributing the results you gave as an example to my theories. In fact, you actually wrote 'see how poor of a model of reality your theories of bloodhydrodynamics are?' which directly attributes the shortcomings you described to my theories. My theories do not accept such results. You were attacking (criticising) an outcome which I don't accept, a system which isn't mine. Strawman. Case closed, I'd say. Admit it. Also, if your comments were only an expression of your feelings towards inaction, then that hardly counts as a rebuttal of my previous point, which is what I assumed you were writing.
Of course, I'm prepared to accept that you're not trying to deliberately mislead about the nature of your post (which does appear to be a strawman), that this is just your poor writing skills at work again. Let me know which you prefer.
Quote:
"but you do weight them, only irrationally. You said minimizing harm is your goal. Yet you take a principal stance of not shooting suspected threats (unless you feel like it, ofcource), so even if I were to show you conclusive evidence that shooting suspects has a clear net positive effect, youd be against it. BZZZT. Conflict."
My concern is minimising undeserved harm for all people equally, as far as that is possible. It's not possible for me to control other peoples behaviour. My choices are based on this idea because I don't agree with a system which results in less harm for some ('some are more equal than others') but more harm for others (a sub-class, if you like), a system which de-values some lives and treats them as expendable, as is the case with the grand ideology of the 'greater good'. That's not a conflict, that's the application of a single principle: it's a case of not letting the big (out-of-touch philosophical) picture which is abstracted from peoples daily lives get in the way of the little picture.
Quote:
"Inaction is action. somehow, you weight the lives of those you kill much more heavily than of those you save. i believe the scientific term for this behaviour is ‘indecisiveness’, but its also known as 'cowardice'.
See my earlier post about the moral culpability for harm caused directly vs. indirectly.
FYI, being indecisive is not being sure what you are going to do. I have made my choice *decisively*. It's not cowardly to use the dictionary, you know.
Quote:
"judging is never perfect. and such moral compromises are already made in the case of a policeman returning fire when being shot on. OMG, hes being judge and executioner all in one! yes, indeed. and mistakes do get made, which i think we should take care to minimize."
No moral compromises are made by acts of self-defense. They *are* made when you kill someone without evidence of their being an actual threat.
See my previous point regarding adapting our responses to specific circumstances.
Quote:
"But i do not favor the alternative of NOT giving executioners of the law also emergency judging powers. Its simply not a viable alternative. If an officer has good enough reason to believe hes being shot at, he needs to be allowed to fire back. If an officer has a good enough reason to believe someone is a bombthreat, he should be allowed to gun him down asap."
I agree with you, provided that your definition of good enough reason doesn't include gunning people down without obvious signs of their possessing a weapon and intending to use it. See my previous point regarding adapting our responses to specific circumstances.
Quote:
"the same applies to the murderer you 'justly' put behind bars. did they consent to being locked up for the principle of the greater good, for the protection of society? my guess is no. In this respect, your attitude (which is enforced by the administrators of society) is an authoritarian one."
See my previous point regarding counteracting unprovoked acts of selfishness.
Quote:
"if the majority of people don’t like someone roaming their streets, they can put him behind bars, effectively taking his life. And they do. similarly, people can choose to gun down people they feel are a threat that needs dealing with quickly. no, its not fair. im not the one suggesting the world is fair in the first place."
I agree with you: it's not just. The only practical thing to do is to engage people in discussion and try to convince as many as possible to think and act otherwise so that the system might be changed. Yes, that may be a futile exercise, but it's worth it nonetheless.
Quote:
"yes, it was a mistake, but your talking to the wrong person. im not the one yelling: VERY GOOD."
Regardless, you condone the underlying decisions and action that lead to the mistake - shooting perceived threats even in cases where there is room for doubt as to the reality of the threats, demanding lethal responses in all situations where someone perceived as a threat disobeys orders.
Quote:
"but you do agree with a policeman returning fire without the intervention of a court? do we finally agree it is a matter of where to draw the line?"
See my later point about the policeman returning fire. No, I don't agree that it is a matter of where to draw the line.
Quote:
"not acceptable to those 700,000 id wager. if you agree to such a thing or not, all depends which side of the fence you are on. you falsely assume that the common interest always trump individuals ones, which is not how human beings work at all. There only is a common interest as long as there is a common goal."
I did not assume that the common interest always trumps individual ones - in fact, I've argued that the opposite should apply in some cases. I was asking if you did think that, since you claimed to be acting in the 'greater good'? See my later point about your inconsistency.
Quote:
"Very good question. Stresses again how much I like to argue these kind of things. It’s a great way to get an insight into others, but mostly into yourself.
indeed i would choose not to implement such a system, and i would expect my selfish fellow man to choose likewise. my non-moral, non-just grounds (which I take pride in) for this are as follows:"
Thanks. I think you've made the basis of your decision not to pursue the greater good quite clear.
Quote:
"1: like you, i am in favour of jailing people who have committed murder. i, and most people with me, feel it reduces the chance of getting killed in the future: something we instinctively dont like. some people, namely murderers, suffer a lot of ill effect from this law: their life was probably pretty shitty to begin with, and now its completely ruined. but do i care? nope. i dont think ill ever be subject to this law: all i need to do is not kill"
Ok.
Quote:
"2: like you, i am in favor of criminals who are shooting to be shot back at. it has undeniable positive effects: i doubt anybody would even want to become an officer if they are nothing but walking targets. on top of that, all i need to do not to find myself on the wrong end of this law is not shoot at people. for me, and apparently for you, the pros outweigh the cons. but for everybody? hell no. laws like this create plenty of room for accidents. its just that regardless, i feel the pros outweigh the cons."
Ok. See my previous point regarding adapting our responses to specific circumstances.
Quote:
"3: unlike you, i am in favour of shooting people who are a perceived danger and ignore repeated and simple orders. it has a positive effect, in parallel with (2). draconian law you say? accident might happen? yes, some people will be negatively affected by this law, but like with (1&2), i think the net effect for me will be positive. all i need to do is raise my hands when an officer requests so: i can live with that. i think the net effect for most people will be positive. but its not really important what you or i think: what’s important in our representative government, is that i think most people would support this law if they think about it well enough. Simply because they are selfish creatures."
Ok. I'm not in favour of shooting people who aren't a definite threat. See my previous point regarding adapting our responses to specific circumstances.
Quote:
"4: now for your above scenario, its very simple: by definition of your hypothetical scenario, there is a positive effect, for everyone nonetheless. however, there are also people who pay the price for this system. how do i know i will not be one of them? Will I be able to exercise any control over this? will it be as simple as not murdering, not firing guns at people, or just raising my hands? lets see what you do have to say about this: people who don't consent to give their lives to this undeniably effective system, are a liability by their choices to our goal of achieving the 'greater good' - keeping in mind that there is no distinction (according to you) between those who *directly* cause harm themselves and those who contribute to the overall level of harm by their *inaction*."
Ok. It looks like your decision is guided largely by self-serving motives, rather than a respect for the lives of others taken by the said homocide.
Quote:
"nah, that doesnt sound too appealing to me, no. I wouldn’t want to give away control over my own fate in such a way, and on top of that, i consider my own life more important than the (unspecified, there are many kinds of) greater good."
Exactly. Thus, your claim to be making and supporting decisions on the basis of the 'greater good' is suspect. See my later point about your refusal to accept the implications of these ideas on your own life.
Another question: If it was possible to implement such a system with an 'amnesty for Eelco' clause, would you then think that this was an agreeable system which should be implemented, regardless of the negative impact it has on others (you said your primary concerns are 'minimising harm' and 'ensuring that you are not personally at the mercy of such systems')? Is it your expectation that others would act only with the same selfish motives? If you condone the system, is that your own rationalisation?
At least the basis of my decision is what is just, rather than what results in the best outcome for me. It's not appropriate to make mathematical value judgements about the lives of individuals, based on our level of empathy for them.
Quote:
"Excuse me, but you have a tendency of making the same point over and over again in a rather longwinded fashion. Sometimes I feel like cutting away paragraphs that I feel I have already responded to, for the sake of keeping all this readable, and im barely managing regardless: I realize this is dangerous territory: I could be, subconsciously or not, be trying to dodge your points, as you claim."
Fair enough. It is conceivable (and I think likely) that you are dodging my points, as I have claimed. See my next point.
Quote:
"If you feel I ignored anything important, that I hadn’t otherwise already replied to, feel free to bring it to my attention again."
It's your responsibility to adequately cover all the points. I've tried to draw your attention to a couple of these omissions, but I'm not going to go and re-read this huge thread, pick out the relevant parts, and re-write the questions for you so that you can answer them. That's your job, assuming you are concerned at having missed commenting on an issue about which you have a strong opinion, assuming you believe that adequtely responding to peoples counter-arguments is valuable when trying to promote a viewpoint.
Quote:
"What unreal examples did I cite?"
Does 'framed you to make it seem like you had a microwave?' ring a bell? How about 'you wouldnt want to return fire untill atleast a handfull of officers have been confirmed dead in a thorough autopsy by a qualified physician'? How about your equating the behaviour of one who deliberately shoots a man ('the executioner of the law') with the behaviour of those who construct large buildings which some people may accidentally fall off? How about your example "demonstrating" that justice is an illusion which presumes that everybody is selfish, that murderers who are put in prison are hard done by?
Quote:
"And ofcource I challenge words used in the dictionary, and otherwise commonly understood words: Im arguing against the thoroughly ingrained mainstream western worldview. I continuously run into the problem that even the very language we use to communicate is simply too grown around the worldview you are defending too properly express my views, for Christ’s sake."
It sounds like you think your ideas are ground-breaking. I've read my share of philosophy and you haven't said anything I haven't heard before.
Knowing: corroboration, verification, confirmation, authentication, affirmation
Suspecting: conjecture, assumption, guesswork, supposition
Quote:
Let me give you a example of a loaded question directed at you, so you might see where im coming from (exclaimer: this is for educational purposes only)
“Maybe if you wernt such a dick, you would see I am right?”
Would you dignify that question with an answer? If you would give an answer, no matter which, youd implicitly agree with me that you are indeed, a dick."
I understand the point you are making, but I don't see it's relevance in this case. Consider my questions:
Maybe if one of your own family members was gunned down you might feel differently? Yes.
Maybe you would feel differently if one of them had a mental affliction and you could still look at them and see the person you know behind this illness - maybe you wouldn't see their inexplicable behaviour as conscious stupidity? Yes, that's true.
Maybe you would have more empathy...? Yes.
Are you saying that answering my questions would be a difficult exercise? Are you sure that doing so would require your being insulted? I was very upfront about their being rhetorical. We've already established that you misinterpreted the purpose of my questions - no false assumptions are required.
Quote:
"You don’t disagree with preventive strikes if you agree with policemen returning fire.
And the evidence in this case is far from given, hence why I reserve judgement for anything but the hypotheticals we discuss."
Preventive strikes are taken before an actual threat has arisen as a precautionary measure (eg. shooting someone who *may* have a gun and be planning to use it). Returning fire implies that shots have already been fired at the policeman, which represents a very real threat. That is obviously self-defense, despite your attempts to claim otherwise eg. 'maybe someone framed him to make it seem like he was trying to kill the policeman'. See my previous point regarding adapting our responses to specific circumstances.
Quote:
"I am really confused at how you can say such things. What is even the worth of a direct observation? Observations only mean something assuming that you are sane. People can directly observe the most convincingly realistic of things, while others might see nothing of the kind."
We're talking about scenarios involving sane people. We don't want mentally ill people to become police officers, if their illness is uncontrollable. My arguments are based on the standard definitions of the words 'suspecting' and 'knowing'. See the previous meanings I quoted, and my points regarding being clearly shot at vs. suspecting someone has a gun and is about to shoot. See my previous point regarding adapting our responses to specific circumstances.
Quote:
"No, I don’t think running from a plane are good grounds for shooting someone. Neither do i think ignoring orders is something you should always be shot for. However, if you are suspected of something for a reason other than the officers paranoia, like for example the very suspicion arousing event of someone claiming to have a bomb, ignoring orders after this point is no-go territory as far as im concerned."
Ok. See my previous point regarding adapting our responses to specific circumstances. If there is other evidence that suggests a man is not a threat (see running from the 'target' plane), I think the authorities should take a more cautious approach.
Quote:
"The simple fact is that its impossible to prove their intentions, even if they aiming, pointing and firing a gun at you, AND proclaiming themselves they are trying to kill you.
There is no proof, yet we fire back regardless. Because the proof meets your standards."
I think that's a ridiculous assertion. That's proof plain and simple.
No, suspecting someone of something without verifiable (with the senses) evidence that they are really up to something is not up to my standards. If there is any doubt (eg. evidence implying the use of rubber bullets or a hoax), the police should opt for a non-lethal response. See my previous point regarding adapting our responses to specific circumstances.
Quote:
"That’s about the fifth time you said that, and it’s in clear conflict with you agreeing with police returning fire. Im not going to make my arguments again, so you can proceed now with claiming im dodging the point."
No, it's not (in clear conflict). See my previous points regarding knowing and returning fire vs. suspecting and responding with non-lethal force. Regarding dodging the point - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time. See my previous point regarding the policeman.
Quote:
"Example, please?"
If you make and justify a decision by arguing that you are concerned with the 'greater good', it follows that you will allow your own judgements and circumstances to be governed by such a system. That is, if your submission is required to achieve that goal. There is no other choice, if you are really occupied with the goal you say you are. If you are not consistent (you argue that some rules that apply to others don't apply to yourself, or you choose not to take a course of action that would allow for the realisation of your goal if that meant there were negative consequences for yourself), then that undermines your assertion that you were in fact making the original decision for the stated reasons. Actually, you don't believe in the 'greater good', in sacrificing for a noble cause. You believe in 'what you want'. Your stated reasons are just an excuse to get 'what you want', which are actually an arbitrarily defined set of gratifications.
Arguing about issues such as this with someone who has no rational, logical, consistent basis for their judgements is rather pointless. See my earlier point regarding personal responsibility in which I highlight your inconsistency.
Quote:
"Male dolphins beat pregnant female dolphins until they have a miscarriage, then rape them.
It doesn’t bother me. I can appreciate the way to world works no matter how harsh it is."
Yes, plenty of things demonstrate the harshness of the world. Some demonstrate the fact that reality was not meant to be measured with human tools such as morality or harm reduction. But, our tools still serve a purpose for us and without them, our individual (human) lives would be less pleasant.
Paulcoz.
[Edited by - paulcoz on December 20, 2005 6:15:35 AM]
