General
19 Aug 03
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou're right, there's no use in trying to discuss this. I try to bring up an ethical point and you respond with "I get my gun", like you're in a some ridiculous Jerry Bruckheimer film. These hypotheticals are thought experiments, meant to get at your intuitions about ethical issues. If you see no difference between free action and action coerced by threat, then you are remedial. You think what the Afghani villager ought to do, when his family is in custody and he is outmanned and outgunned, is sacrifice his family to go down in some wild west blaze of glory. This just gets everyone he cares about killed. He knows this. He decides that it would be better to do the only thing that could ensure the safety of his family, and that is to comply with the Taliban. These are mitigating circumstances, circumstances of the sort that our own judicial system takes into consideration when deciding on the guilt of an accused citizen. This simple fact is that there is an ethical difference between acting freely and acting with a gun to your head or trained on your family. Your refusal to even admit of this distinction reveals that you are the one in the grip of a dangerous ideology, and are beyond being reached by discussion.
I'd like the world to be a better place. I'd like our political institutions to at least attempt to prevent unneccessary suffering. I'd like our political institutions to at least attempt to ensure that people have their basic needs met, and that their rights are respected. If this makes me "utopian", or "progressive", then you've really extende ...[text shortened]... position" was more humane. You are ipso facto more human than I. Good luck on the logic finals.
19 Aug 03
3 edits
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI was not necessarily defending bbarr's position at all. Please read my post; I don't believe he was mentioned. I would not be in said position, because I support the evolutionary goal of society which naturally includes certain elements (the police and military) to deal with undesirable people who wish to kill myself and my family. If it is, as in one of the examples, those elements that seek to destroy me, then yes, I would first recognize that they no longer represented the actual goal of society, and then I would probably join of form some organization to establish a society to confrom to those goals, through violence if necessary (I would, for example, have joined the French Resistance under circumstances like those. I would not have fought with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan because that would be trading one anti-social society (the Taliban) for the governance of another (the US and various international corporations that stood to gain.)
So you would hurd in the jews, turn on the gas and light the match as bbar would suggest, just to save yourself or your family? I wouldn't. Real life isn't composed of "generalities". Only specifics. Are you serious that you would ...[text shortened]... ulous for me and not for him? These are "what ifs" are they not?
EDIT This post is not even motivated by the fact that I don't, in principle, support civilians walking about with guns.
EDIT This does not reply to any of the content in bbarr's post, I started writing this before 18:24 EST.
19 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrNice try mr. obfuscate and duck. You don't have any redeeming qualities whatsoever. Geez. How bout that. We don't like each other even more than we did the first time you tried to baffle me with your genuinely elitist BS. Your hypotheticals are not understood by you. Why should i gain some magical understanding of them. You used a gun to put up a point. I used the SAME GUN to respond. As to free action. I act that way daily. Ain't life a bitch. If only you could get your ideal society in place, you could have me killed. Works for most liberals of your ilk. If my ideology is dangerous, then avoid it. Thanks.
You're right, there's no use in trying to discuss this. I try to bring up an ethical point and you respond with "I get my gun", like you're in a some ridiculous Jerry Bruckheimer film. These hypotheticals are thought experiments, meant ...[text shortened]... a dangerous ideology, and are beyond being reached by discussion.
Your's is not dangerous. Just silly. I feel like i'm fighting an unarmed child here. Get with it bbar. You are head rooster at a bar. You should know all kinds of really good, human, biting insults. Maybe you aren't good at listening? That's all i can figure. Must have really bad attention dissorder? Your insults are as lifeless as your argument.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIs there, or is there not, a relevant ethical distinction between acting freely and acting under a direct threat?
Nice try mr. obfuscate and duck. You don't have any redeeming qualities whatsoever. Geez. How bout that. We don't like each other even more than we did the first time you tried to baffle me with your genuinely elitist BS. Your hypotheticals are not understood by you. Why should i gain some magical understanding of them. You used a gun to put up a poi ...[text shortened]... figure. Must have really bad attention dissorder? Your insults are as lifeless as your argument.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenSo, what then have you proven? Only that you are smarter than I. I already knew that. I would rush off and get me and all mine killed. You would pick some allies and resist as best you could. I have always been a bit tempestuous. I am glad you would resist. Some wouldn't.
I was not necessarily defending bbarr's position at all. Please read my post; I don't believe he was mentioned. I would not be in said position, because I support the evolutionary goal of society which naturally includes certain elements (the police and military) to deal with undesirable people who wish to kill myself and my family. If it is, as in ...[text shortened]... does not reply to any of the content in bbarr's post, I started writing this before 18:24 EST.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by bbarrThere IS NOT. Only for relavitists. To the rest of us, we act ETHICALLY. "Freely is Feely" and touchy and gooey... and an excuse for not thinking clearly. Means nothing when missapplied as a question of Ethics. Do the right thing bbar. Good for you.
Is there, or is there not, a relevant ethical distinction between acting freely and acting under a direct threat?
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAre you saying that the ONLY thing that matters, when determining whether someone acted ethically, is their act itself?
There IS NOT. Only for relavitists. To the rest of us, we act ETHICALLY. "Freely is Feely" and touchy and gooey... and an excuse for not thinking clearly. Means nothing when missapplied as a question of Ethics. Do the right thing bbar. Good for you.
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenI think he (bbar) was (and is) trying to divert everything to relavativity again, and I don't agree that it is interesting. Totally outdated and silly. A Waste of effort and time. It is just a place where he hides because he has no substance. Why can't he just yell at me and tell me i'm an ass, or worse. I am, you know when arguing with people i don't like. Should I try to like him? Yuck! That is another advantage to not being politcally correct. Nobody ever needs to worry about how I feel. To borrow a phrase from the 60's "Let it all hang out!"
Maybe I am oversocialized or something. But I doubt it. Anyway, I think bbarr's question is interesting, because it was the original point of the "gun gedankenexperiments", rather then the quibbling that I(?) dragged you into.
So what do you say?
19 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenYes! You get it. Everyone is personally responsible for what they do. Or don't do. Otherwise you become a cog in the state, sometimes to the detriment of masses of other people.
So our hypothetical coerced Taliban is essentially to be held responsible for not resisting forces that an outside observer (the US captors) deems to be evil?
19 Aug 03
Mike, no-one is really trying to divert anything to ethical relativity. In fact, bbarr recently gave me quite the dressing-down for what he saw as excessive skepticism and moral relativism. I think the purpose of the question is merely to take a few scenarios and actually build some useful moral principles that are widely applicable.
And he's not telling you you're an ass because everyone here really has insufficient data about anyone's personality.