Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[RandFan]

Which is exactly what you are doing. You're excluding a huge chunk of the middle in your constant attempt to portray people who don't think it's always necessary, or even the best option, to run from burglars as "killing to protect property".

It is reasonable to use a hypothetical to isolate a specific binary question. Where on earth you got the idea that it was not possible is rather bizarre.

The fact that it is, does. And I'm far from the only one who has recognized that and commented on it. And with that, I'm done with this, since you're clearly not going to accept the fact that real life is far more ambiguous, and rarely, if ever, as clear-cut as you're trying to portray it.

Nice dodge. No one is claiming that real life isn't ambiguous. That's just a red herring.

 

[luchog]

I think one of the ways we explore our morals is to ponder questions at the points of our moral compass and then explore the answers with logic to find out if our worldview is consistent. I don't understand how you can think it's unusual or unhelpful.

It's unhelpful because you're trying to portray black and white situations as applicable to real-world ambiguities. As I noted in my reply to Randfan, the real world is rarely, if ever, that clear-cut. Every situation will be ambiguous, and sometimes snap judgements have to be made. I prefer to err on the side of defense of myself and my neighbors when the nature of the threat is not entirely clear. Pretending things are black and white does not really provide any useful information about how people would act under real-world conditions.

 

[crimresearch]

What is eppur si dipende?

Sounds more like Italian than Latin... which would mean it's not legal terminology.

sigh...

You simply have no clue.

 

[luchog]

I find that in general many people have not asked these questions but rather hide behind rationalizations. That is what I was attempting to remove.

People here have clearly answered these questions since the start of the thread, so I'm not sure why you were unable to see that if you bothered to read the rest. Sounds like a rationalization for building straw men to me.

 

[crimresearch]

It's unhelpful because you're trying to portray black and white situations as applicable to real-world ambiguities. As I noted in my reply to Randfan, the real world is rarely, if ever, that clear-cut. Every situation will be ambiguous, and sometimes snap judgements have to be made. I prefer to err on the side of defense of myself and my neighbors when the nature of the threat is not entirely clear. Pretending things are black and white does not really provide any useful information about how people would act under real-world conditions.

This!

 

[crimresearch]

It is reasonable to use a hypothetical to isolate a specific binary question. Where on earth you got the idea that it was not possible is rather bizarre.

Nice dodge. No one is claiming that real life isn't ambiguous. That's just a red herring.

And DeNile isn't just a strip club in Bahrain...

 

[RandFan]

To show you just how ill informed you are...

Which is exactly what you are doing. You're excluding a huge chunk of the middle in your constant attempt to portray people who don't think it's always necessary, or even the best option, to run from burglars as "killing to protect property". It's not, not matter how many hypotheticals you can dream up.

If you go to http://www.justiceharvard.org/ you will find that it is a free course on justice. Professor Sandell asks MANY of these very same hypotheticals. By your logic esteemed professor Sandel is engaging in fallacy throughout his course.

 

[3point14]

It's unhelpful because you're trying to portray black and white situations as applicable to real-world ambiguities. As I noted in my reply to Randfan, the real world is rarely, if ever, that clear-cut. Every situation will be ambiguous, and sometimes snap judgements have to be made. I prefer to err on the side of defense of myself and my neighbors when the nature of the threat is not entirely clear. Pretending things are black and white does not really provide any useful information about how people would act under real-world conditions.

You are the only person I have ever met, here or elsewhere, that doesn't accept an extreme hypothetical as a valid way of examining a situation.

I simply don't understand how you can fail to understand the usefulness of such a device. One might suspect that you don't want to answer the question.

Either way, if you can't deal with the question, I have no interest in continuing the discussion with you as we simply won't be able to communicate effectively.

Have fun.

 

[Xulld]

This one isn't, despite your attempts to portray it as such. And looking at other posts, I'm clearly not the only one who recognizes this.

Which is exactly what you are doing. You're excluding a huge chunk of the middle in your constant attempt to portray people who don't think it's always necessary, or even the best option, to run from burglars as "killing to protect property". It's not, not matter how many hypotheticals you can dream up.

The fact that it is, does. And I'm far from the only one who has recognized that and commented on it. And with that, I'm done with this, since you're clearly not going to accept the fact that real life is far more ambiguous, and rarely, if ever, as clear-cut as you're trying to portray it.

It is reasonable to use a hypothetical to isolate a specific binary question. Where on earth you got the idea that it was not possible is rather bizarre.

Nice dodge. No one is claiming that real life isn't ambiguous. That's just a red herring.

He is doing the same thing here that he did at the start of this thread. He is ignoring your objections and continuing to parrot his assertion without regard to his inconsistencies.

I pointed this out within the first few pages and he put me on ignore.

You are the only person I have ever met, here or elsewhere, that doesn't accept an extreme hypothetical as a valid way of examining a situation.

No one is saying that hypothetical's are useless, just that when they do not match the granularity of the situation the conclusions are flawed, which makes THAT specific hypothetical useless.

 

[RandFan]

You are the only person I have ever met, here or elsewhere, that doesn't accept an extreme hypothetical as a valid way of examining a situation.

I simply don't understand how you can fail to understand the usefulness of such a device. One might suspect that you don't want to answer the question.

Either way, if you can't deal with the question, I have no interest in continuing the discussion with you as we simply won't be able to cimmunicate effectively.

Have fun.

I suspect that people who do not understand such hypotheticals have never sat in a philosophy or science course. They are the bread and butter of teaching most subject but they are critical to philosophy and science.

 

[3point14]

I suspect that people who do not understand such hypotheticals have never sat in a philosophy or science course. They are the bread and butter of teaching most subject but they are critical to philosophy and science.

And an excellent way to examine one's thoughts for cognitive dissonance...

 

[Xulld]

I suspect that people who do not understand such hypotheticals have never sat in a philosophy or science course. They are the bread and butter of teaching most subject but they are critical to philosophy and science.

. . and when used poorly they are the bread and butter of straw man attacks, and political rhetoric.

 

[luchog]

Thanks, I know enough about human behavior and human psychology to know that your reasoning about the hypothetical defendant is simplistic and has no basis in cognitive or behavioral science.

I have to agree with this; which is why I've said that the attitudes of certain people here bother me. Killing a person is always a difficult thing to cope with. It takes a lot of desensitization and dehumanization, or a mental disorder, before one is able to kill that casually. At best, killing under those circumstances is an unfortunate necessity that brings psychological repercussions. Even experienced law enforcement officers and military personnel have to deal with it.

I know for a fact I could easily kill someone I felt was a threat, because I have the training to do it, and I have been in situations where I was threatened (though unarmed at the time). I'm not entirely sure how I would cope with it afterwards. I know I wouldn't have a breakdown over it, as others have said they would; but I certainly wouldn't be happy about it either.

 

[RandFan]

Hypotheticals

source Hypotheticals are situations, statements or questions about something imaginary rather than something real. Hypotheticals deal with the concept of "what if?"'. Grammatically, the term is a noun formed from an adjective, and the word is pluralized because it refers to the members of a class of hypothetical things.

Hypotheticals are very important because they provide a means for understanding what we would do if the world was different. Although this may assist our understanding of risk, and help us plan and create a new and better future, hypotheticals also help us understand the past, and why things happened or how things work. For example, in seeking to understand why a war started we could ask: "What if the parties had talked more first? Would they have worked out a better way of solving their problems? Could war have been averted?" Hypotheticals about the past are challenging to consider, as it is not possible to enter the past to change things according to our hypotheticals and determine what then may have occurred.

For those playing at home.

 

[crimresearch]

You are the only person I have ever met, here or elsewhere, that doesn't accept an extreme hypothetical as a valid way of examining a situation.

I simply don't understand how you can fail to understand the usefulness of such a device. One might suspect that you don't want to answer the question.

Either way, if you can't deal with the question, I have no interest in continuing the discussion with you as we simply won't be able to communicate effectively.

Have fun.

Extreme hypotheticals are used for a lot of things, some of them completely unrelated to objective analysis.

See above for examples.

The invalid forms and their respective fallacies are:

If A, then B
And B; therefore A
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent (ACq)

If A, then B
Not A; therefore not B
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent (DA)

http://www.virtualsalt.com/think/deduhypo.htm

 

[RandFan]

I have to agree with this; which is why I've said that the attitudes of certain people here bother me. Killing a person is always a difficult thing to cope with. It takes a lot of desensitization and dehumanization, or a mental disorder, before one is able to kill that casually. At best, killing under those circumstances is an unfortunate necessity that brings psychological repercussions. Even experienced law enforcement officers and military personnel have to deal with it.

I know for a fact I could easily kill someone I felt was a threat, because I have the training to do it, and I have been in situations where I was threatened (though unarmed at the time). I'm not entirely sure how I would cope with it afterwards. I know I wouldn't have a breakdown over it, as others have said they would; but I certainly wouldn't be happy about it either.

Thanks. Understood. In spite of our differences I really appreciate that. I'll stop beating my dead horse on hypotheticals. We can move on.

 

[luchog]

Fixed your comment. I think part of the concept behind Stand-Your-Ground and Castle-Doctrine type laws is that you only really know someone has decided to do you harm when they have done that harm. One shouldn't have to wait until that point to decide that an appropriate course of action is...

The problem with SYG and Castle Doctrine laws is that they try to make things too explicit, thus creating a lot of marginal or conflicting situations, and loopholes that can be taken advantage of by the less ethical. Self-defense statutes should be clear, concise, and broad, and should recognize that the individual, not the state, is the primary defender of the individual and community; and there should always be room for reasoned human judgement in evaluating individual cases.

 

[Newbielayman]

This is where I get into trouble with everyone else. I think it is your job to act prudently. Act in a way as to decrease your relative risk. Neighborhood watches. Clean and maintained properties. Plenty of lighting. Locks and perhaps alarm systems. And, if you want to be armed, then that is your right and I certainly champion that if you choose it. But it is irrational to suppose that we are in such danger that we must all be armed to the teath and ready to shoot to kill.

I think people should do the math and actually find out what their relative risks for various things are. I think they would be surprised. Wearing your seat belt and not smoking are important but some people put more stock into a 12 gauge. Sure, you can do all of it but some people only worry about crime.

Hey, it's America.

It's interesting that in the self-defense context you would find a duty on the part of individuals to "act prudently". Have you not also argued on other matters that, actually, the government or society has the duty to protect and provide for the individual though; to "act prudently" on behalf of the individual whether he wants it or not? Why should the government not have that same duty here? Why is it that suddenly when it comes to protecting life or possessions that the duty is thrust back on the individual? Maybe I have you confused with someone else?

 

[Newbielayman]

I won't make a categorical claim. Historically deadly force has been allowed only if a person reasonably believes that his life is in danger. Do you have a precedent or law that states a life can be taken to defend property when there is no reason to fear for loss of life?

Yes but not for civilians. The federal government, and specifically the military, may use deadly force in the protection of government property where clearly marked AND at times for civilian property (rioting, martial law, etc).

 

[RandFan]

It's interesting that in the self-defense context you would find a duty on the part of individuals to "act prudently". Have you not also argued on other matters that, actually, the government or society has the duty to protect and provide for the individual though; to "act prudently" on behalf of the individual whether he wants it or not? Why should the government not have that same duty here? Why is it that suddenly when it comes to protecting life or possessions that the duty is thrust back on the individual? Maybe I have you confused with someone else?

Thank you. A good question. I think we should encourage personal responsibility and prudence in thought and deed. I think it is very possible that there is a real danger of govt paternalism ala John Locke. So I don't take that lightly. I would posit that there is no single best way to deal with both the needs of society and the needs and freedoms of the individual and business. In other words, any system of governance will result in conflict (moral dilemma).

IMO, we need to prioritize our goals and values and find a way to best meet those goals. If it can be shown that simply expecting the individual to act prudently results in significant harm to society and, if social programs, regulations and policies will mitigate that harm with minimal loss of liberty then those should be considered. Before implementation, the benefits of the programs and policies must be weighed against the loss of liberty and any ill effect of not requiring the individual to bear personal responsibility.

Example: Traffic laws. We could simply ask and expect drivers to act prudently. The problem is that when they don't it causes some degree of harm to society. So, we restrict personal liberty with regulations.