The gun lobby is deranged

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

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 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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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,

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:

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.

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.

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.

What you cll 'self- defence'?

See this is the kind of thing I find appalling and unacceptable. You and I may be Americans, but other than that, we have NOTHING in common. You will gladly give up your rights to an overpowering tyrannical government and I will not.

Actually, I do have carpal and it was kicking my ass last week and over the weekend. If I seemed more flippant than normal, that's why and, I apologize. Pain has a tendency to erode my patience.

Are you omnipotent? Are you infallible? I know I'm neither of those and that's why I would never force my own subjective opinions onto the lives of other people. Your example, as I stated, began with the assumption that you had superior situational knowledge to that of the man but, unless you really are omnipotent, you can't know that to be the case.

You can believe yourself to have superior knowledge of the situation (which could only be "true" in a hypothetical situation where you, yourself, set every parameter) but in the real life, without omnipotence, you cannot know your information is superior to that of other people.

If you can admit that you're neither omnipotent nor infallible, then on what grounds do you believe yourself in any way qualified/justified/authorized to impose your will onto others by force?

Only to then say...

So in some circumstances you do feel that you're in some way special, some way superior to other people, in some way qualified/justified/authorized to impose your will on others by force (which is clearly a rejection of the doctrine you just claimed to accept).

You readily admit you have no Right (inalienable), that it's wrong (right & wrong), that it's immoral to initiate force against other people, yet - in some circumstances - you would choose to do it anyway and consider yourself justified in the action. Such a belief is a rationalization (making excuses for behavior you know to be wrong and/or immoral). Rationalization is an informal fallacy of reasoning which renders the argument rationally invalid.

I'm pretty sure you agree that rape is always wrong. I'm confident there are no circumstances under which you you would be willing to rationalize that particular initiation of force against another human being... You seem perfectly comfortable rationalizing (making excuses) for murder, robbery, and slavery as having 'potential gray areas' but not rape. There must be something special about that particular violation of individual rights for you to consider the act of raping someone to be worse (no potential for gray area) than murdering them. So what, in your mind, makes rape an "inflexible" black and white issue with no gray area? My guess would be that you cannot think of a situation, or circumstance, where the act of rape could be rationalized as a way of "achieving a greater good" but I would like to hear what you have to say.

Omnipotent, infallible? Of course not. In an emergency situation one can only act on what one knows -- that our friend is hysterically ranting about what he mistakenly believes is his wife's infidelity. Can there be overriding causes? Of course.

What are the upsides and downsides of one's actions.

In my case, if I was mistaken, the guy can always commit suicide successfully when I leave. If I was not mistaken I saved his family from a horrible tragedy.

In your case, you let him commit suicide. If you misread the situation you allow a permanent horrible tragedy with a wife who may wonder why you didn't initiate more forceful action rather than simply trying to convince her hysterical husband with shouted words. You are left explaining to her that you never initiate force against anyone for any reason. If she is not rabidly libertarian she won't accept that explanation kindly.

If you were not mistaken, he is dead. You can tell his wife what you witnessed, but she would still have the same emotional reaction unless she knew of a different reason that she condoned. Do you want to take that chance?

No, nobody is omnipotent or infallible. We just have to try to do what we think is right ("appropriate, suitable, fitting, or proper") under the circumstances. I feel my morality is about average -- certainly not superior like you think. As I said, your moral code is too inflexible for me to guide the best course of actions.

No I did not admit that. However, I did readily admit the following:
"No individual has the right to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances."
You inserted the extra phrases:
"that it's wrong (right & wrong), that it's immoral ... "
and claim that I readily admitted to that. You are being dishonest. I did not admit to an immorality; I clearly said that I interpreted the definition "Right" as "entitlement".

I simply can't think of any example right now where I would condone rape or slavery.

Murder yes. Suppose a school bus chock full of kids was stalled across a railroad track with a speeding train bearing down on it with no time for more than one or two kids to exit. Further suppose you are near a switch that will divert the train to a track with a known homeless druggie who has been in and out of jail for robbery to support his habit. He is wearing plugs from an ipod and is unaware of anything. You have 3 seconds to act. I would feel very bad about initiating action to murder the druggie, but that's what I would do.

What would you do?

Each individual should be free to decide that for himself, according to his own fallible judgement, but never at the expense of others.

You must believe there is something superior about yourself because you have no problem, in *certain* circumstances, imposing your will on others by force, violating their freedom to live their own life according to their own judgement. What is it about your own subjective and fallible opinion that you believe trumps the equally subjective and fallible opinions of others?

Perhaps you take issue with the term "superiority" and you know of a more appropriate term. If I were to overrule your judgement, by force, to stop you from doing what you think "is right ("appropriate, suitable, fitting, or proper") under the circumstances", or forced you to do something you think is wrong (inappropriate, unsuitable, etc.) under the circumstances, what term would you use to describe my total lack of regard for your Right to decide such things for yourself?

I see... You realize you have no Right (inalienable) to violate the rights of other people but, under *certain* circumstances, would choose to do so anyway. You would not consider your actions wrong (right & wrong) nor would you consider your actions immoral... But I'm still curious... If you know you don't have a Right to violate the rights of other people, what grants you the authority to do something you have no Right to do?

You're the one being dishonest (primarily with yourself) by arguing that murder, slavery, or any violation of Rights can, on occasion, be rationally or logically argued as moral acts. They can't. Contradictions cannot exist in a rational or logical argument. Your entire "Morality" consists of contradictions (it is one big gray area), making it irrational and illogical. So that leaves you with Rationalization as the only plausible means of quelling the Cognitive Dissonance that's created by holding two diametrically opposed positions at the same time - murder is both moral and immoral.

You will probably want to claim you don't hold these opposite views of murder at the same time, that circumstance determines when murder is and is not moral, but if I were to ask you if it was moral to murder innocent people - and you were to answer without regard for circumstance - you would have to answer both Yes and No. In the absence of the Rationalization, you do hold those two opposing views at the same time, that's the entire point of creating the Rationalization, to have a plausible excuse that explains the existence of the contradiction.

Rape is probably true but I maintain the charge that you fully support slavery - not the "men in chains working a plantation" kind of slavery but the "civilized" version whereby you take the fruits of one man's labor, by force and without his consent, and then redistribute those fruits to some other individual - who didn't earn it and doesn't deserve it - legally of course... You know this "civilized" form of slavery as the Welfare State (both individual and corporate welfare are immoral forms of slavery).

We've already established that you can Rationalize violating the Rights of other individuals (except for rape). It's still a Rationalization (you're making excuses), that means you're using fallacious reasoning to make a rationally invalid argument sound plausible... but that's all it does, sound plausible, in reality it's a facade erected to hide the ugly truth beneath the surface: Murder is always immoral.

If it's moral to do so, why not go out and start murdering druggies? Why must there be a school bus full of children for your action to be moral? The answer is, of course, Rationalization. Once again your Rationalization (making excuses) for murder takes the form of Conflation, whereby you're conflating an immoral act (murdering an innocent person) with what you perceive to be a moral one (saving lives).

Every such "moral dilemma" is an attempt to equivocate, to create a moral equation by ascribing some unstated value to each component expression; the immoral being a negative (-1), the moral being a positive(+2), and, fallaciously, considering any unstated sum greater than zero(+1) as a rational justification for committing the immoral act. That's not morality, it's a rejection of morality.

Two words...Common Sense.. : sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts..That would be my only answer as to why I might or might not do something..
g

Rahm Emmanuel:

“I don’t mind being yelled at, like verbally abusive, fine,” he said. “But I think the mayor — and I made this point in an email later to his staff, clearly crossed the line by grabbing me.”
Hastings said that he has interviewed “terrorist leaders…dictators…a lot of politicians…a lot of angry people,” but that no one had ever put their hands on him. The journalist also claimed that Emanuel didn’t seem to be “in full control of what he was doing” during the exchange.

I’d love to see him charged with assault. But you know the cops would ignore it.
And I agree with Glenn: “I think one reason why these people support gun control is that they assume everyone else is as unstable as they are.”