The gun lobby is deranged

[Gipper]

To the obvious and inevitable conclusion: No individual has the "right" to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances.

IMO you have raised an important issue that divides Americans. Some Americans find governmental force acceptable. They demand government provide for them and don't care that other Americans must support them or face terrible consequences. I find these types of Americans disgusting.

Others, like you and me, find governmental force immoral, ineffective, and entirely Un-American.

IMO this division may destroy America. I do not want to associate with Americans who want socialism, collectivism, or governmental force. I want to disassociate with them.

 

[Iolo2]

IMO you have raised an important issue that divides Americans. Some Americans find governmental force acceptable. They demand government provide for them and don't care that other Americans must support them or face terrible consequences. I find these types of Americans disgusting.

Others, like you and me, find governmental force immoral, ineffective, and entirely Un-American.

IMO this division may destroy America. I do not want to associate with Americans who want socialism, collectivism, or governmental force. I want to disassociate with them.

Ask for a reservation, padded.

 

[Lagboltz]

I'm really not sure why the word initiate is so confusing... It means someone is minding their own business, not using force against anyone, not violating anyone's rights, then someone else comes along and initiates force against that person and thereby violate their rights. So let me ask again...

Do you believe any individual has a "right" to initiate force against others?

Of course as a general rule I agree nobody has a right to initiate force against others.

That's probably because you do not understand the Right of Self Defense, it's likely never been explained to you, and/or you've never given it any serious thought, and/or you've never bothered to ask anyone... So here it is: The Right of Self Defense is the Right of all individuals to use force against those who initiate the use of force. That means if you witness a woman being mugged in an alley, and even though you don't know her, her life is not your own, and it's not your purse being stolen, you have the Right to use force against the mugger (because he is the one who initiated the use of force). It's not purse defense, it's not woman defense, it's Self Defense.

You are using the word "Right of Self Defense" in capital letters. This term is apparently from some theology or philosophy you read, but the dictionary definition of self defense is very clear about defending self only. If you want to broaden that definition using that particular phrase in caps, I will go along with it.

If that individual is initiating force only against himself and no one else, then yes, you are violating his rights. Our Right to Life means that your life belongs to you and no one else, it doesn't mean you have a "right" to choose who lives and who dies, it doesn't mean you have a "right" to force someone to continue living against their will, nor does it mean you have a "right" to be provided - at the expense of someone else - with every material good or service necessary to live.

Like every other area in life, you may disagree with the decisions an individual makes, and you may disagree with their reasoning behind the decisions, but their life belongs to them, not you, and you only have the Right to make decisions about your own life - not the life of any other adult. You have the Right to try and persuade them, with reason, but you do not have a "right" to impose your will on them by force.

Just so we can move on with this I will assume preventing suicide is always a negative act, but there are many hypothetical counterexamples where you would be doing that person a great favor by preventing his suicide. I won't bog down this discussion with that for now.

I believe I've only quoted her once during our conversation... Let's not get sidetracked into making this about her, it's not, it's about the immorality of initiating the use force against others.

Twice. Yes, let's not get sidetracked.

Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient.

Why do you feel you have to copy a definition of abstraction here. Are you trying to be condescending? The concept of initializing force covers many many types of human interaction and the term "initialize force against someone" is abstracting those many types into one simple phrase. So yes I am using abstraction correctly in the sense that it is meant.

My question to you regarding the "right" to initiate the use of force against others is very specific. Either you believe such a "right" exists or you do not; either you believe individuals have a "right" to murder innocent people or they do not; either you believe they have the "right" to rape, rob, and enslave their fellow man or they do not. The claim of moral ambiguity, the claim of an elusive gray area, is the abstraction. It is an attempt to justify, without stating it aloud, that some men - under certain circumstances - could (or even do) have such a "right".

Au contraire, "right to initalize force" is an abstraction. The examples you give above are specific and concrete and I would certainly agree with them. But also the "trolley problem" is also very specific and concrete. It is not an abstraction, but a counterexample to illustrate a potential gray area to the abstraction.

To the obvious and inevitable conclusion: No individual has the "right" to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances.

Under your definition of "Right of Self Defense", I will agree this is true. Are we done now?

 

[Gipper]

Ask for a reservation, padded.

Typical response from the left....oh you are a right wing whacko!!!!

Your values are NOT my values. I believe in limited constrained government. You do not. I believe in individual liberty. You do not. I believe in capitalism. You do not. I believe in individualism, you believe in collectivism. I believe in non-interventionism. You believe in interventionism. I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You do not. I believe in American exceptionalism. You do not.

So you see, we have nothing in common. I am an American. You are a leftist. I would much rather part company with your kind.

 

[GenSeneca]

Of course as a general rule I agree nobody has a right to initiate force against others.

Why only as a "general rule"? Why would you not consider it an immutable moral principle (as I do)? Do you hold any immutable moral principles and, if so, would you mind stating one? I really am interested to know if you hold any such principles and what it/they might be.

The concept of initializing force covers many many types of human interaction and the term "initialize force against someone" is abstracting those many types into one simple phrase. So yes I am using abstraction correctly in the sense that it is meant.

My use of the term "the initiation of force" is broad, so in that sense I will concede that it is abstract, but it's also very specific; either force is being initiated or it is not. And yes, it does apply to every single human interaction - That's the point of a moral Principle:

1. A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
2. A rule or belief governing one's personal behavior.

And I include definitions such as that to avoid confusion on the definitions of the terms we're using, not only for the benefit of you and I but also for the benefit of anyone who may read our conversation. The purpose is to clarify and avoid confusion, not to be condescending. I actually have a great deal of respect for you and appreciate the opportunity to disagree without the conversation devolving into ad hominems (as people on both the Left and Right are apt to do when unable to have a civilized conversation).

Au contraire, "right to initalize force" is an abstraction.

Yet this "abstract" moral principle is applicable in every single concrete example you can offer and please, feel free to test that claim. Either force is being initiated or it is not, either you believe such a "right to initialize force" exists or you do not. Is it possible that you see it as some temporary "right" that is somehow acquired by an individual but only under certain circumstances?

If you do believe these, I'll call them "circumstantial rights", actually exist, can you offer another example of a "circumstantial right" so that I may better understand the concept?

The examples you give above are specific and concrete and I would certainly agree with them.

It seems you do not agree, as you consider the act of murdering an innocent person to be a potentially gray area while I do not.

But also the "trolley problem" is also very specific and concrete. It is not an abstraction, but a counterexample to illustrate a potential gray area to the abstraction.

Either it is wrong to murder innocent people or it is not. You view it as a "potential gray area" because you're conflating an immoral act with some other act you consider moral.

Conflation: In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.​

On the one hand is the murder of an innocent person and on the other is saving X number of innocent lives, these are two separate moral issues being conflated by a common circumstance. However, each is a stand alone concept - Murder is in-arguably an immoral act. Saving lives is arguably a moral act.

Conflating the two in terms of one another doesn't create a potentially moral gray area, it creates a fallacy of logic. Could you, or anyone, argue that the act of murdering innocent people is moral without conflating the immoral action with some other moral action or result? If you cannot, then the logic of considering the act of murdering an innocent person as a "potential gray area" is flawed.

Under your definition of "Right of Self Defense", I will agree this is true.

Under your definition individuals only have a right to protect themselves and no one else... So now I'm curious... What Right would you claim is being exercised when one individual comes to the defense of another? For example, a policeman or bystander would be exercising said Right when coming to the aid of the aforementioned woman who was having her purse snatched.

Are we done now?

I hope not, I'm rather enjoying our conversation.

 

[Lagboltz]

Why only as a "general rule"? Why would you not consider it an immutable moral principle (as I do)? Do you hold any immutable moral principles and, if so, would you mind stating one? I really am interested to know if you hold any such principles and what it/they might be.

Rape, murder, or enslavement are examples that immutably break moral principles.

My use of the term "the initiation of force" is broad, so in that sense I will concede that it is abstract, but it's also very specific; either force is being initiated or it is not. And yes, it does apply to every single human interaction -

That is where we disagree -- either is ... or it isn't. In the continuum of interaction there is an area of uncertainty where different people will judge differently. Even the rigorous laws of physics has an uncertainty principle.

That's the point of a moral Principle:
1. A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
2. A rule or belief governing one's personal behavior.

That definition is fine, but there is nothing in that definition that says that judgement of a moral Principle has to be black and white. You are adding that as a requirement.

Yet this "abstract" moral principle is applicable in every single concrete example you can offer and please, feel free to test that claim. Either force is being initiated or it is not, either you believe such a "right to initialize force" exists or you do not. Is it possible that you see it as some temporary "right" that is somehow acquired by an individual but only under certain circumstances?

Temporary is the wrong word for what I consider as moral ambiguity.

If you do believe these, I'll call them "circumstantial rights", actually exist, can you offer another example of a "circumstantial right" so that I may better understand the concept?

Back to the suicide example. You previously stated that preventing a suicide was using force immorally. Suppose you prevent a suicide using force; say just as he is about to squeeze the trigger I whack a gun out of his hand using a baseball bat. Suppose his reason is that he found mysterious emails and then saw his wife hugging and kissing a stranger. I happen to know that she just discovered her long lost brother and not a lover. Don't you think this was a proper use of force for an unnecessary suicide even though I may have broken his finger?

It seems you do not agree, as you consider the act of murdering an innocent person to be a potentially gray area while I do not.

Either it is wrong to murder innocent people or it is not. You view it as a "potential gray area" because you're conflating an immoral act with some other act you consider moral.

Conflation: In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.

On the one hand is the murder of an innocent person and on the other is saving X number of innocent lives, these are two separate moral issues being conflated by a common circumstance. However, each is a stand alone concept - Murder is in-arguably an immoral act. Saving lives is arguably a moral act.

Conflating the two in terms of one another doesn't create a potentially moral gray area, it creates a fallacy of logic. Could you, or anyone, argue that the act of murdering innocent people is moral without conflating the immoral action with some other moral action or result? If you cannot, then the logic of considering the act of murdering an innocent person as a "potential gray area" is flawed.

First you say that I "consider the act of murdering an innocent person to be a potentially gray area while I do not". When you call my stance a conflation, you are saying that I was treating a different distinct concept. If I were doing that then in my mind you have not expressed you initial premise carefully when you claim that use of force on another is always immoral. If you want to avoid confusion you will have to carefully define your Universe of Discourse as far as the span of situations that entail usage of force.

Under your definition individuals only have a right to protect themselves and no one else... So now I'm curious... What Right would you claim is being exercised when one individual comes to the defense of another? For example, a policeman or bystander would be exercising said Right when coming to the aid of the aforementioned woman who was having her purse snatched.

Not so. I was only defining self defense as it is commonly known, where you had a broader definition, referring to it as "Right of Self Defense". If you want to define that as meaning coming to someone else's defense, fine. I thought I was clear about that.

Your prior post ended with the statement "No individual has the "right" to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances." That statement was unqualified and allowed all sorts of gray area counterexamples.

If you want to exclude the suicide example and the trolley problem, etc as being a conflation and limit the scenarios in some manner such that there are no extenuating circumstances for use of force, then I would agree with your statement.

So what's next?

 

[GenSeneca]

Rape, murder, or enslavement are examples that immutably break moral principles.

What moral principles would those be? I asked that you state a moral principle you hold as immutable, that means a moral principle that you would never bend or break under any circumstances. You did not answer that question. Do you have any such moral principles?

Regarding the issue of rape, I'll take your word for that one. Regarding murder, you have stated that you consider it a "gray" area under the right circumstances - so clearly you don't consider that one immutable but entirely flexible. And as for enslavement, you seem to fully support - at least to some unspecified degree - slavery on a sliding scale (forcing some individuals to labor, without compensation, for the exclusive benefit of some other individual, e.g. the welfare state).

That is where we disagree -- either is ... or it isn't. In the continuum of interaction there is an area of uncertainty where different people will judge differently. Even the rigorous laws of physics has an uncertainty principle.

If you walk up to a guy and punch him in the face, you initiated the use of force against him. If you punched him in the face because he was standing on your lawn holding a can of gas, a pack of matches, and threatening to burn your house down, you are not the one who initiated the use of force but were acting in self defense. If some third party arrives mid brawl and doesn't know which one of you initiated the use of force, it doesn't change the fact that one of you did, and, in such a case of uncertainty, it would be the role of the courts to determine - as best they can - who violated the rights of the other and who was acting in self defense.

That definition is fine, but there is nothing in that definition that says that judgement of a moral Principle has to be black and white. You are adding that as a requirement.

I'm not sure what you mean by "judgement of a moral principle"... Perhaps I should ask, do you ascribe to any morality? If so, what morality would that be? Does it have a name, is there a source where I can learn about your morality? Mine is the Morality of Reason and you can read more about it HERE if you're interested.

Temporary is the wrong word for what I consider as moral ambiguity.

You're claiming that some individuals have the right to violate the rights of others but only under certain circumstances. Such a "right" sounds temporary (since they do not always have this right) but the term "circumstantial rights" does seem more appropriately descriptive of the type of rights you're describing. So how about it... Would you accept the term "circumstantial rights" for the type of rights you're claiming exist?

Back to the suicide example. You previously stated that preventing a suicide was using force immorally. Suppose you prevent a suicide using force; say just as he is about to squeeze the trigger I whack a gun out of his hand using a baseball bat. Suppose his reason is that he found mysterious emails and then saw his wife hugging and kissing a stranger. I happen to know that she just discovered her long lost brother and not a lover. Don't you think this was a proper use of force for an unnecessary suicide even though I may have broken his finger?

You do not have the right to initiate force against others, ever, it is always a violation of their rights. In the above example I'd say the man would probably thank you for violating his rights once he learned the truth, however, that doesn't change the fact that you did indeed violated his rights and that you had no right to do so. It's your unsupported claim that you have the right to violate the rights of others that I take issue with, no individual has such a right, ever.

First you say that I "consider the act of murdering an innocent person to be a potentially gray area while I do not". When you call my stance a conflation, you are saying that I was treating a different distinct concept. If I were doing that then in my mind you have not expressed you initial premise carefully when you claim that use of force on another is always immoral. If you want to avoid confusion you will have to carefully define your Universe of Discourse as far as the span of situations that entail usage of force.

I'm not sure why you guys keep dropping the word INITIATE from my explanation of the use of force, it makes a huge difference - maybe that's why you guys do it. Initiating the use of force is always immoral - you have no right to do it. Using force in retaliation against those who do initiate it's use is moral, you do have that right and it's called self defense.

Not so. I was only defining self defense as it is commonly known, where you had a broader definition, referring to it as "Right of Self Defense". If you want to define that as meaning coming to someone else's defense, fine. I thought I was clear about that.

Perhaps you misunderstood my question. What I asked about is by what right you think police, or the military, can come to the defense of others. My answer was that all individuals have the right of self defense, that's where the right of the police and military to defend us comes from as every member of either group is himself an individual.

If you don't think self defense is the right by which our police and military defend us from those who initiate force against us, if you do believe the right of self defense is only applicable to defending one's self as the dictionary claims, then what right do you believe the police and military are exercising in coming to the defense of others? I guess it is possible you don't think they are exercising any particular right when defending us, you just accept that they do it and don't bother asking yourself by what right they do so.

Your prior post ended with the statement "No individual has the "right" to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances." That statement was unqualified and allowed all sorts of gray area counterexamples.

You are claiming individuals have a right to initiate force against others... What right would that be? The "Right of Self-Offense"? Please explain what this right is, who has it, and where it comes from. You don't need to explain when they have it, you've already established your belief that this right is entirely based on circumstance.

If you want to exclude the suicide example and the trolley problem, etc as being a conflation and limit the scenarios in some manner such that there are no extenuating circumstances for use of force, then I would agree with your statement.

Let's go back to the above example of the suicide guy. If I were the one who initiated force against that man to stop him, I would NOT pretend that I had a RIGHT to violate his rights.

I would freely admit that I had no right to violate his rights. I would freely admit that my action was immoral because I used force to impose my own judgement on that of another person. I would beg his forgiveness and accept whatever punishment was given to me... If you still do not understand why I say that circumstances do NOT imbue you with a RIGHT to violate the rights of others, then I ask that you define and explain your concept of Rights as it obviously differs from my own.

 

[Lagboltz]

What moral principles would those be? I asked that you state a moral principle you hold as immutable, that means a moral principle that you would never bend or break under any circumstances. You did not answer that question. Do you have any such moral principles?

Regarding the issue of rape, I'll take your word for that one. Regarding murder, you have stated that you consider it a "gray" area under the right circumstances - so clearly you don't consider that one immutable but entirely flexible. And as for enslavement, you seem to fully support - at least to some unspecified degree - slavery on a sliding scale (forcing some individuals to labor, without compensation, for the exclusive benefit of some other individual, e.g. the welfare state).

If you walk up to a guy and punch him in the face, you initiated the use of force against him. If you punched him in the face because he was standing on your lawn holding a can of gas, a pack of matches, and threatening to burn your house down, you are not the one who initiated the use of force but were acting in self defense. If some third party arrives mid brawl and doesn't know which one of you initiated the use of force, it doesn't change the fact that one of you did, and, in such a case of uncertainty, it would be the role of the courts to determine - as best they can - who violated the rights of the other and who was acting in self defense.

I'm not sure what you mean by "judgement of a moral principle"... Perhaps I should ask, do you ascribe to any morality? If so, what morality would that be? Does it have a name, is there a source where I can learn about your morality? Mine is the Morality of Reason and you can read more about it HERE if you're interested.

I don't value Ayn Rand nor any religion. I don't steal, murder, rape, and have never done anything that the law would have the remotest interest in. And no, I don't have any formal moral principle that you could read about.

You're claiming that some individuals have the right to violate the rights of others but only under certain circumstances. Such a "right" sounds temporary (since they do not always have this right) but the term "circumstantial rights" does seem more appropriately descriptive of the type of rights you're describing. So how about it... Would you accept the term "circumstantial rights" for the type of rights you're claiming exist?

You do not have the right to initiate force against others, ever, it is always a violation of their rights. In the above example I'd say the man would probably thank you for violating his rights once he learned the truth, however, that doesn't change the fact that you did indeed violated his rights and that you had no right to do so. It's your unsupported claim that you have the right to violate the rights of others that I take issue with, no individual has such a right, ever. I'm not sure why you guys keep dropping the word INITIATE from my explanation of the use of force, it makes a huge difference - maybe that's why you guys do it. Initiating the use of force is always immoral - you have no right to do it. Using force in retaliation against those who do initiate it's use is moral, you do have that right and it's called self defense.

Perhaps you misunderstood my question. What I asked about is by what right you think police, or the military, can come to the defense of others. My answer was that all individuals have the right of self defense, that's where the right of the police and military to defend us comes from as every member of either group is himself an individual.

If you don't think self defense is the right by which our police and military defend us from those who initiate force against us, if you do believe the right of self defense is only applicable to defending one's self as the dictionary claims, then what right do you believe the police and military are exercising in coming to the defense of others? I guess it is possible you don't think they are exercising any particular right when defending us, you just accept that they do it and don't bother asking yourself by what right they do so. You are claiming individuals have a right to initiate force against others... What right would that be? The "Right of Self-Offense"? Please explain what this right is, who has it, and where it comes from. You don't need to explain when they have it, you've already established your belief that this right is entirely based on circumstance.

I have no name for it. If a circumstance arises, I will react to it unencumbered by some immutable principle.

Let's go back to the above example of the suicide guy. If I were the one who initiated force against that man to stop him, I would NOT pretend that I had a RIGHT to violate his rights.

I would freely admit that I had no right to violate his rights. I would freely admit that my action was immoral because I used force to impose my own judgement on that of another person. I would beg his forgiveness and accept whatever punishment was given to me... If you still do not understand why I say that circumstances do NOT imbue you with a RIGHT to violate the rights of others, then I ask that you define and explain your concept of Rights as it obviously differs from my own.

Rather than bandying words about, I want to get to the bottom line. I prefer not to make arguments with examples, but it is often the quickest way to get to the gist. Let me summarize the arguments.

Concerning the suicide problem: Suppose our friend is hysterical and will pull the trigger within seconds, and I have no time to reason. So I initiate force with a baseball bat to prevent the unnecessary suicide, which came about because of his misunderstanding. Afterwards he is very thankful I did that.

It seems that you would also take action to prevent the suicide. Let's both accept this as an immutably correct doctrine: No individual has the right to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances.

Suppose you and I both would initiate the necessary force and perhaps injure our suicide friend in the process. That leads to the following:

(1) We had no right to do that.
(2) We did it anyway.
(3) We feel we made the right choice. (So does he and his wife!)

The word "right" has many different meanings.
In (1) the definition of right is "a lawful or moral empowerment" (as in Bill Of Rights)
In (3) the definition of right is "appropriate, suitable, fitting, or proper"

However in light of the suicide scenario, should your doctrine always inflexibly guide us on how we behave?

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't steal, murder, rape, and have never done anything that the law would have the remotest interest in.

I'm not talking about the law. Any immoral action can be codified into law and made legal, that does not make the action any less immoral.

You believe you have a "right" to initiate force against others but you can't define your use of the word "right", you cannot state the name of the supposed "right", or even explain where this supposed "right" comes from. You consider the murder of innocent people to be a potential moral gray area but cannot name, much less explain, your concept of morality. You claim to hold moral principles but you can't name a single one and freely admit that you may or may not adhere to those principles anyway.

I'm just not seeing why you consider yourself superior to me and, therefore, qualified to impose your will on me by force...

 

[Lagboltz]

I'm not talking about the law. Any immoral action can be codified into law and made legal, that does not make the action any less immoral.

You believe you have a "right" to initiate force against others but you can't define your use of the word "right", you cannot state the name of the supposed "right", or even explain where this supposed "right" comes from. You consider the murder of innocent people to be a potential moral gray area but cannot name, much less explain, your concept of morality. You claim to hold moral principles but you can't name a single one and freely admit that you may or may not adhere to those principles anyway.

I'm just not seeing why you consider yourself superior to me and, therefore, qualified to impose your will on me by force...

Hey, No! I don't consider myself superior. I just think your moral doctrine needs more thought. Read the rest of my post. I am accepting the statement of your doctrine at the end and seeing how to analyze the suicide example in terms of it. Point (1) is totally consistent with the way you state your doctrine. You ignored that in your reply and only commented on one lesser important sentence.

Do you disagree or have any comment on the rest of the post? Isn't point (1) what you have been trying to get me to accept all along?

 

[Gipper]

 

[GenSeneca]

Hey, No! I don't consider myself superior.

Then what, in your mind, qualifies you to initiate the use of force against me? There must be something you believe authorizes you to act as my superior, something you think gives you the Right to impose your will on me by force. I would like to know what that something is.

I just think your moral doctrine needs more thought.

Uhhh... You can't name your morality, you can't explain it, you can't even describe its purpose, you also can't name any moral principles for it, and you admit that you may, or may not, adhere to those unnamed principles anyway but you believe that MY moral doctrine needs more thought...LOL

I've come to realize that the gray area you see in every moral issue has nothing to do with circumstances - Your entire moral code, if one could even call it that, is the gray area... One big amorphous blur of moral nothingness...

I just thought of a name you could use, the Pseudo-Morality of Ambiguity - it's defining moral principle is "There is only one absolute: There are no absolutes", a morality where nothing is ever certain, everything is flexible, and there are no standards to follow, ever. Simply ignore reason and make all your decisions in life based purely on emotion. Do whatever the hell you like, whenever the hell you like, to whomever you like, and, if you feel you did the right thing, consider your action "moral" and tell yourself you had a Right to do it. If you should ever feel what you did was wrong, pretend it never happened and tell yourself you still had a Right to do it anyway... After all, people shouldn't be encumbered by something as trivial as immutable moral principles, that might lead to moral consistency - which is totally NOT gray or ambiguous.

Read the rest of my post.

I did read all of it, and even replied to the rest of it, but realized before I decided to post that my very first response was too important to risk having it be ignored or become buried in minutia.

I am accepting the statement of your doctrine at the end...

No, you don't accept it, you still think you have the Right to initiate force against me... But you still haven't explained WHY.

You ignored that in your reply and only commented on one lesser important sentence.

There is only one item of importance - Your claim that individuals have a Right to initiate force against one another. Every single political disagreement we will ever have comes down to that one unfounded and unsupportable belief.

Do you disagree or have any comment on the rest of the post?

Since you really want to talk about your suicide example, I will comment:

I would NOT use force against the man trying to commit suicide. As I've already stated, it's wrong - morally - and I have no Right to do so. Secondly, I could yell, "He's your brother in law!" in less time than it would take me to swing a baseball bat. Third, you mentioned the uncertainty principle but assumed yourself to have superior situational knowledge to that of the man. The application of the uncertainty principle:

The man has pancreatic cancer and only a few weeks left to live. He didn't tell anyone (so you had no way of knowing) because he didn't want to bear the indignity of languishing in a hospital bed waiting to die. The pain was getting so bad that he could no longer hide it and that's why he was committing suicide. His decision to end his life that day had nothing to do with his wife's contact with the other man. He knew the man was her brother and it actually brought him a great deal of comfort. He was glad to know his wife would not be alone to deal with the sudden, albeit inevitable, loss of her husband. In stopping the man from taking his own life you robbed him of what he wanted most - to end his life on his own terms and with his dignity in tact. Your actions forced the man to suffer the very fate he was hoping to avoid and with broken fingers on top of it - he is not grateful.

One last comment... You mentioned that judgement was unique to individuals, that our opinions are subjective, that what you think is true, or right, or correct, may not be the same as what I believe to be true, or right, or correct... After all, we are only humans and each of us is fallible. I agree.

Reason is our only tool for survival, it's how we process the information from the world around us, it's how we conceptualize all that we know (or at least think) exists, it's how we formulate our perception of reality and thereby make decisions regarding the best way to live our own lives in accordance with reality. Attempting to live without regard for reality, to try and live in contradiction to reality, will result in our own death.

Because we will not agree on everything all the time, because we are all fallible and none of us are omnipotent, every individual must have the freedom to think for himself and act according to his own judgement - that means we must be free from any form of coercion. That is why it's so important for everyone to realize that individuals do not have a "Right" to initiate force against one another, that we do not have a "Right" to impose our will, our judgement, our beliefs, onto others by force. To do so robs a man of his only means of survival, reason.

 

[Lagboltz]

Then what, in your mind, qualifies you to initiate the use of force against me? There must be something you believe authorizes you to act as my superior, something you think gives you the Right to impose your will on me by force. I would like to know what that something is.

Uhhh... You can't name your morality, you can't explain it, you can't even describe its purpose, you also can't name any moral principles for it, and you admit that you may, or may not, adhere to those unnamed principles anyway but you believe that MY moral doctrine needs more thought...LOL

I've come to realize that the gray area you see in every moral issue has nothing to do with circumstances - Your entire moral code, if one could even call it that, is the gray area... One big amorphous blur of moral nothingness...

I just thought of a name you could use, the Pseudo-Morality of Ambiguity - it's defining moral principle is "There is only one absolute: There are no absolutes", a morality where nothing is ever certain, everything is flexible, and there are no standards to follow, ever. Simply ignore reason and make all your decisions in life based purely on emotion. Do whatever the hell you like, whenever the hell you like, to whomever you like, and, if you feel you did the right thing, consider your action "moral" and tell yourself you had a Right to do it. If you should ever feel what you did was wrong, pretend it never happened and tell yourself you still had a Right to do it anyway... After all, people shouldn't be encumbered by something as trivial as immutable moral principles, that might lead to moral consistency - which is totally NOT gray or ambiguous.
I did read all of it, and even replied to the rest of it, but realized before I decided to post that my very first response was too important to risk having it be ignored or become buried in minutia.

No, you don't accept it, you still think you have the Right to initiate force against me... But you still haven't explained WHY.

There is only one item of importance - Your claim that individuals have a Right to initiate force against one another. Every single political disagreement we will ever have comes down to that one unfounded and unsupportable belief.

Save your breath (or maybe your carpal tunnel.) I already said that I accept your doctrine that "No individual has the right to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances." Isn't that what you wanted to convince me of all along? I spelled out the confusion in my previous post. The reason for my previous lack of acceptance was that was that I was confusing one definition of "right" with another.

Since you really want to talk about your suicide example, I will comment:

I would NOT use force against the man trying to commit suicide. As I've already stated, it's wrong - morally - and I have no Right to do so. Secondly, I could yell, "He's your brother in law!" in less time than it would take me to swing a baseball bat. Third, you mentioned the uncertainty principle but assumed yourself to have superior situational knowledge to that of the man. The application of the uncertainty principle:

I already said he was hysterical and there was no time for reason. You must realize you are back pedaling. You previously said in post #142,

Let's go back to the above example of the suicide guy. If I were the one who initiated force against that man to stop him, I would NOT pretend that I had a RIGHT to violate his rights.

I would freely admit that I had no right to violate his rights. I would freely admit that my action was immoral because I used force to impose my own judgement on that of another person. I would beg his forgiveness and accept whatever punishment was given to me.

I totally agree. I would not pretend to have that right either. To me that means that your use of "right" was defined as "moral or lawful empowerment"

In that post we were discussing MY example.

Next you start arguing a similar but intrinsically different example:

The man has pancreatic cancer and only a few weeks left to live. He didn't tell anyone (so you had no way of knowing) because he didn't want to bear the indignity of languishing in a hospital bed waiting to die. The pain was getting so bad that he could no longer hide it and that's why he was committing suicide. His decision to end his life that day had nothing to do with his wife's contact with the other man. He knew the man was her brother and it actually brought him a great deal of comfort. He was glad to know his wife would not be alone to deal with the sudden, albeit inevitable, loss of her husband. In stopping the man from taking his own life you robbed him of what he wanted most - to end his life on his own terms and with his dignity in tact. Your actions forced the man to suffer the very fate he was hoping to avoid and with broken fingers on top of it - he is not grateful.

I totally agree that I would not take action against the guy under the circumstances of YOUR EXAMPLE. But THAT WAS NOT MY EXAMPLE. In my example there was no other reason for suicide than the mistaken one I clearly stated.

One last comment... You mentioned that judgement was unique to individuals, that our opinions are subjective, that what you think is true, or right, or correct, may not be the same as what I believe to be true, or right, or correct... After all, we are only humans and each of us is fallible. I agree.

Reason is our only tool for survival, it's how we process the information from the world around us, it's how we conceptualize all that we know (or at least think) exists, it's how we formulate our perception of reality and thereby make decisions regarding the best way to live our own lives in accordance with reality. Attempting to live without regard for reality, to try and live in contradiction to reality, will result in our own death.

Because we will not agree on everything all the time, because we are all fallible and none of us are omnipotent, every individual must have the freedom to think for himself and act according to his own judgement - that means we must be free from any form of coercion. That is why it's so important for everyone to realize that individuals do not have a "Right" to initiate force against one another, that we do not have a "Right" to impose our will, our judgement, our beliefs, onto others by force. To do so robs a man of his only means of survival, reason.

I agree with that.

What puzzles me is that you seem to think that I have a moral superiority over you when I was simply responding with a suicide example where you implied you would do exactly the same thing that I would, but the difference is that you admitted that you would have no right. I have admitted the same as you in my previous post. Since I agreed with you I really don't understand your contentious air.

I still think the process of action is:

(1) I have no right to initiate force against someone.
(2) If I violate that doctrine to achieve a greater good,
(3) I made the right choice.

That is not moral superiority. It is the crux of the suicide example and the trolley problem. That still leads me to believe that your doctrine, although correct as stated, is too inflexible to be the only guide on how we should behave in all circumstances.

 

[Gipper]

 

[Iolo2]

Sensible people would trust you weirdoes with just one well-aimed bullet in the back of the head to save their children. You just keep praying the American people never grows up.