not nearly as weird as foreign extremists ignoring the facts regarding the millions murdered by tyrants. more than a few children among those millions.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
The gun lobby is deranged
- Thread starter Dawkinsrocks
- Start date
not nearly as weird as foreign extremists ignoring the facts regarding the millions murdered by tyrants. more than a few children among those millions.
Werbung:
Guff. People with guns kill people everywhere. Tell us news, then get rid of the guns.
Cruella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 4,311
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Do governments kill?
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Lag, you skipped over answering a couple of important questions... Please take a moment and do that now:
What is it about your own subjective and fallible opinion that you believe trumps the equally subjective and fallible opinions of others?
If you know you don't have a Right to do something (e.g. violate the rights of other people), what grants you the authority to do something you have no Right to do?
What is it about your own subjective and fallible opinion that you believe trumps the equally subjective and fallible opinions of others?
If you know you don't have a Right to do something (e.g. violate the rights of other people), what grants you the authority to do something you have no Right to do?
and where the people are denied guns, they kill by the millions. just admit when you cannot refute.
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
I did answer that question ... Use common sense.
Most of life doesn't involve moral opinions concerning others. But when that does come about I treat each case separately. I have been in many business situations where people bumped heads with me and were being very unfair. In their mind I was the one being unfair. When possible I would seek outside opinion of others that knew about the situation and have a more objective view. It is hard to deal honestly with aggressive liars, and I got stuck with working for and along side many.
You and Rand may think you have a solution, but the problem is figuring out who is "initializing force" and how much "self defense" is required for protection. To me, that is where there are too many gray areas for Rand's dictum to have any meaning.
In the end there is nothing that grants authority. You just have to use a sense of fairness and common sense for each situation.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Common sense is something which you think you know to be true but that may not actually be true.
A perfect example of how common sense can fail is by asking someone the question: "Which weighs more, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?" Common sense tells you that a brick weighs more than a feather and can thus lead you to incorrectly say the ton of bricks weighs more. Most people realize this though and answer the question correctly. The realization that both are the same weight comes about by applying rational thought to the question, not common sense.
Common sense is in fact, our very entry into being a thinking thing. "Does this new idea I have, fit into the everyday world as I know it, and if not, why not".
Common sense is the equivalent of an introductory course to logic and reason. It does play a role in guiding an individual through everyday life but it isn't a legitimate substitute for rational or logical thought. An individual who considers common sense "good enough" has arrested their own development in the area of critical thinking. Instead of asking "Why not?" to the above question, such people answer, "Who cares?" Rather than thinking about the contradiction for the purpose resolving it, they simply choose to ignore it.
Common sense is often confused with rational thought, being that people often believe common sense must be true and act incredulously to rational or scientific ideals that contradict common sense.
It's 'common sense' to you that everyone would choose to sacrifice the life of one individual to save many but that's not rational. For example, if we flipped your example and made it a choice between allowing the train to kill a bus full of convicted felons or switch the track to intentionally murder one little girl skipping down the other line, it's likely your 'common sense' would no longer consider it "moral" to murder the one to save the many. Now common sense is telling you that it's "moral" to allow the many to die rather than murder the one. Am I wrong? Would you still choose to intentionally murder the one little girl to save the bus full of convicted felons?
Another example would be to place two buses on the tracks, a school bus filled with children and a prisoner transport bus filled with an equal number of convicts. If you do nothing, a tragic accident occurs and kills the children. If you change the tracks, you are choosing to intentionally murder the convicts. Which will you choose? I already know the answer: You'd choose to murder the convicts!
Common sense is telling you, via confirmation bias, that their lives are not as valuable as those of the school children. So how many convicts would you intentionally murder to save that one bus full of kids? A hundred? A thousand? A million? Is there any number of convicted felons great enough that you would choose to let the children die a horrible death? Given your "Common Sense - Morality", I don't believe you would ever choose to allow the children to die instead of intentionally murdering an infinite number of convicts...
That's what the new thread I posted is all about. Without even realizing it, you place your own subjective values on the lives and rights of other individuals. You value the lives of innocent poor people above the lives of convicted felons. My proposal of mass murder would not only save but greatly improve the lives of countless numbers of children and poor people. If you're willing to intentionally murder a potentially infinite number of felons to save the life of that one little girl, what possible "moral" objection could you have to intentionally murdering the nations felons to accomplish an even "greater good" than that of simply saving the life of a single child? None that I've seen or expect to see.
That's why it's called the Morality of Reason. It's the purposeful application of logic and reason to the concept of morality. Your "morality" rejects logic and reason as too inflexible, and it's true, they are inflexible, but that's precisely why they are the only means of establishing a morality that is free of contradictions. Your "morality" is replete with contradictions, it both is and is not moral to murder people is just one such example.
Such statements do more to support the Morality of Reason than your own. Reason requires thought, common sense does not. You look to emotions as a guide while I rely on rational thought. Whatever you feel is the right course of action, you consider moral. As if your emotions can somehow impart a temporary omnipotence that allows you the ability to instinctively know the difference between right and wrong - without actually having to think about it.
Mine requires a great deal of rational and logical thought. Yours could not be any simpler, don't think... Just feel and let your emotions guide your actions. If you feel you did the right thing, then tell yourself it was the right choice without ever actually thinking about it. When you can't simply ignore it, like when I ask you to explain it, you have no choice but to resort to the use of rational and/or logical fallacies (like using Rationalization, which, despite it's name, is not rational, it's the act of using fallacious reasoning to explain a contradiction).
Your examples rely on Rationalization, which means fallacious reasoning. The use of such fallacies does not and cannot prove that I'm incorrect, it only proves that you've abandoned reason and logic as the means by which you determine right from wrong.
The Morality of Reason is based on the application of reason and logic to the concept of morality, not "one short sentence from Ayn Rand". If there is "one short sentence" that serves as the root of morality, Rand didn't state it, Aristotle did: A is A - A thing is itself.
That's the law of identity, existence exists and the purpose of having a morality is so that individuals can act in accordance with reality. Failure to act in accordance with reality leads to bad results, consistently failing to act in accordance with reality will lead to death. We must deal with reality - as it exists - not as we wish it existed, or feel it should exist but as we know it exists. This knowledge isn't automatic, it can't come from emotions or feelings, it isn't imparted to us by mystical means, it isn't instinctual, we have to earn it, which means we have to work to achieve it. Working to obtain knowledge means we have to use the inflexible rules of reason and logic to discover it - that is the only way to learn what is true and know it.
So say you..I will stick with common sense because that's all I know lol..My common sense tells me there are a lot of very smart people in this world that are clueless..Now my definition of the word is a little different than yours. In my world, and by my definition, common sense is a blessing and i am proud to say my Children got it from me..
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
But that doesn't make sense... I would have preferred an honest response, such as, "Because I can and you're powerless to stop me. I can't explain why I would choose to do it, not with logic or reason anyway, I simply act on my emotions because I feel it's the right thing to do. There is no rational or logical way to defend my actions, so I don't bother. I simply do whatever I feel like doing - because I can."
I asked before how you would characterize my behavior if I initiated force against you to stop you from doing what you think is right, or used that force to make you do something you think is wrong... You didn't answer. I think it comes from having some innate sense of superiority over others but you took issue with the word "superiority" and felt it was the wrong term. While you're thinking about what word would best describe my complete and utter disregard for your rights as an individual, would you consider it nothing more than "Common Sense" for me to initiate force against you?
I don't see the point you're trying to make here... You disagreed with them as to who was being unfair, I got that... But you seemed to skip over the part where you resorted to the use of force as the means by which you "resolved" the conflict... You know, the part where you imposed your will on them by force, thus making the difference of opinion a moot point.
Well, your answer would seem to be "Common Sense" - as if it's some automatic knowledge that requires no rational or logical thought, much less a rational or logical explanation. If someone disagrees, you simply say, "Well, you're wrong!" because you can't make a rational or logical argument for why you're right. If they still refuse to agree with you, then you initiate the use of force against them to end the debate.
I can't speak for Rand but I think she would agree the best course of action would be to use logic and reason to rationally address the problem. Arriving at a solution by the application of logic and reason results in the ability to explain how and why the conclusion was reached. When you reach a conclusion with "Common Sense", and you're questioned on how and why you reached that particular conclusion, your answer is, "Well, it's obvious to me, therefore it should be obvious to everyone". You see it and that's good enough for you. The fact that they don't see it is their problem, not yours. So you feel justified in resorting to the use of force to end the debate and impose your opinions on everyone who disagrees.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I think you're talking about my statement, "It's immoral to initiate force against others", given the context anyway. The "gray" area that you claim to see comes from resorting to the use of conflation, equivocation, rationalization, or some other fallacy of logic or reason. Your attempts to claim that it can be moral to initiate force against others relies on the use of those fallacies of logic and/or reason to excuse, or outright ignore, the fact that initiating force against others is immoral. Creating a hypothetical example whereby the initiation of force is seen as necessary, or even the best of the available options, does not alter the morality of the action.
Yet you choose to exercise an authority that you do not posses and has not been granted to you...
You think it's "fair" to violate the Rights of others, that's it's simply "common sense" for you to do so... Do you consider it "fair" when other people violate your Rights and do you accept "common sense" as a legitimate excuse when they do so?
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
^^^^ Thank you for the lecture on common sense. In a clear cut black and white (for me) scenario with a bus of kids and a single druggie, I can easily make a decision. If I didn't save the kids I would consider that moral cowardice. If you want to cite examples where one has to choose between 15.3 children versus 549.8 felons I will leave it for you to mull over. I was only citing a single solid counterexample to Rand's dictum, and not creating a "Guide On Train Crashes for Dummies".
The world is replete with tradeoffs, dilemmas and seeming contradictions. Ayn Rand can't make a simple one line rule that would handle them all. I think you are misguided on what common sense is. My common sense requires as much rational thought as any golden rule -- especially when the golden rule fails for some specific incidence.
If you would let a train run into a school bus full of kids. I would say that you are using Rand's dictum as the rationalization for allowing them to be killed. If you want to call common sense or any action a "rationalization", you have to know what the person that makes a decision is thinking and you can't know that.
Aristotle?? You are reciting his tautology as a guide for morality?? Doesn't work for me. I would rather go with my common sense. The "one short sentence" I was referring to is "No individual has the right to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances." Isn't this what you are basing your arguments on?
Your final paragraphs seem to be reciting the usual dogma from Ayn Rand. That stuff doesn't move me. I generally "act in accordance with reality" without needing to study Rand.
The world is replete with tradeoffs, dilemmas and seeming contradictions. Ayn Rand can't make a simple one line rule that would handle them all. I think you are misguided on what common sense is. My common sense requires as much rational thought as any golden rule -- especially when the golden rule fails for some specific incidence.
If you would let a train run into a school bus full of kids. I would say that you are using Rand's dictum as the rationalization for allowing them to be killed. If you want to call common sense or any action a "rationalization", you have to know what the person that makes a decision is thinking and you can't know that.
Aristotle?? You are reciting his tautology as a guide for morality?? Doesn't work for me. I would rather go with my common sense. The "one short sentence" I was referring to is "No individual has the right to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances." Isn't this what you are basing your arguments on?
Your final paragraphs seem to be reciting the usual dogma from Ayn Rand. That stuff doesn't move me. I generally "act in accordance with reality" without needing to study Rand.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Is it moral for you to violate the Rights of others? What does your "common sense" tell you is the correct answer to that question?
Do you consider "common sense" to be a legitimate excuse for violating the rights of others?
Lag is using the phrase "Common Sense" as his excuse for initiating force against other people. This use of force includes, but is not limited to, using "common sense" as justification for murdering innocent people. Because you are the one who used the phrase "common sense", I think he's hoping to win you over to his side of the argument by invoking it for his own purposes:
Transfer: Transfer is a technique used to carry over the authority and approval of something we respect and revere to something the propagandist would have us accept. Propagandists often employ symbols (e.g., waving the flag) to stir our emotions and win our approval.
I doubt you, or your children, have ever approved of, much less committed, acts of murder, extortion, or enslavement and claimed "common sense" as a legitimate justification for such actions. Immoral acts such as those are exactly what Lag is trying to claim are not only moral but justified by "common sense".
In your "world", what you attribute as being nothing more than "common sense" is likely a far more rational and logical thought process than you give yourself credit for.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Do you consider it "fair" when other people violate your Rights and do you accept "common sense" as a legitimate excuse when they do so?
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
There are only two examples where I said I would initiate force -- the suicide and "trolley problem" examples. I already gave you reasons and we beat that to death. I am not going over that again.
I would characterize your behavior as you being a bastard to you being a savior depending on the circumstances. We would have to talk over each incident to see where the problem is/was.
Again, it all depends on the situation. Marketing insists on bells and whistles on a product that would delay the project by 6 months. I say we would miss a marketing window, and overrun product costs, so I strongly recommended against it (i.e. I used force.). Marketing was sore. Marketing pushed it behind my back (i.e. they used force.) The product was way too expensive and missed the window, we didn't go into production, and we wasted $100,000 on unnecessary R&D. I was sore. I used common sense, and was unfortunately right. If the product sold like hotcakes because of the bells and whistles, then their common sense would have been right. It was a gray area. Rand's sense of morality seems to be no help in conflict resolution. Don't say she requires rational reasoning because that is what is done anyway without her advise.
Let me tell you there was lots of rational and logical explanation behind that event. The dictum of Rand is too simple minded to resolve complex controversy. That is where common sense comes in.
The example real-life problem I just cited was a gray area that required lots of rational analysis, and in the end it required experience, and logical foresight -- common sense. That conforms to my definition of common sense.
You are talking nonsense when you talk about conflation, equivocation, and rationalization applying to gray area situations. You were myopic when you considered the "trolley problem" as two separate problems -- murder vs. saving kids. The problem was a single intertwined problem. When you considered it as conflating two separate aspects you lost the essence of the situation and became frozen in uncertainty to the extent that you never did tell me what you would do in that counterexample. That paralyzation is what can lead you to decisions in complex gray areas, not rationality.
It seems that Ayn Rand gave you your authority. She is not my authority.
As I said, my judgment would range from considering them as somewhere between a bastard to a savior depending on the circumstances.
Werbung:
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
Depends on what rationale drove their common sense.
Similar threads
