I don't really see why there is this argument that keeps coming up that "appeals to emotion" are somehow faulty or always, simply by their very nature, never with merit.
Not always, but when using reason evaluate an argument it is, by definition, a fallacy. If you cannot see why, turn it around: "I have to have the slaves because I cannot work this farm on my own, I cannot afford to pay them like they were White folks, and if I don't have them my children will starve."
It's certainly true that emotions can cause people to do things which are not justifiable or which, when later considered, are a less than optimal action. But they can also lead people to do things which are necessary or which would not be possible in a timely or decisive manner if they were left to be debated.
It can also lead people to do things which are unnecessary or even harmful in a timely and decisive manner. People have proven themselves well able to handle emergency situations without getting their dander up. Usually they are better equipped to handle the situation than the person that's upset or emotional.
If one is driven to intervene when one they see suffering, simply because they have a nagging feeling that they should, is this wrong?
Sometimes, yes. Because no one is omniscient. It is very possible for the person "driven to intervene" to misapprehend the situation, to take the "wrong side" because of personal bias, to assume, to speculate, to be incorrect. This is exactly why most criminal justice systems prohibit or discourage vigilantism.
If someone is so outraged at the sight of an innocent person being harmed that they feel unable to not do something about it, is this again wrong?
How do you know they are "innocent"? What standard do you use for "harm"? Now, at this point, we might be tempted to play the "duelling hypotheticals" game, but the fact is, without foreknowledge of the people involved and their situation the best anyone can do is guess, and guesses can and frequently are wrong.
When a stranger is seen in pain, and one is compelled to offer comfort,
If there is nothing you can do for them, they might see you as a meddling jerk or a nosy busybody- so sometimes, yes.
or if a person is driven by anger to help capture a terrorist or aid in an investigation, is this wrong?
Frequently, yes. This is why we have professional police forces that are trained to act dispassionately and lynch mobs are outlawed. An angry person is not an investigator, he is a person seeking revenge, and as such usually jumps on the first likely suspect to "punish". I don't know how old you were when OKC was bombed, but in the first few hours there were a lot of people- myself included- that thought that Muslim terrorists had done it. After 9/11, a "person... driven by anger to help capture a terrorist" murdered a Sikh gas station owner just down the street from my house. I'm sure he was just loads of help to everyone concerned.
I know of people who have helped in search efforts or volunteered or lobbied for a law or policy not because of how it may befit their roll in the social contract but simply because they felt for another.
Swell, you want to play dualling anecdotes now? I know of people who have passed out Chick tracts or donated money to televangalists because they sincerely felt by doing so they were saving someone from the fires of hell. People can be motivated by emotion to do "good" things", and people can be motivated by emotion to do "bad" things. It is a poor way to determine the appropriateness and value of an action. When you consider that "appropriateness" and "value" themselves are subjective and highly variable considerations, it seems a
very poor one.
Yes, sometimes.
My own personal beliefs on the matter go beyond the scope of what is discusses here
Why? It would seem to be central to the discussion.
But if you must know: I would be willing to have labor be an option for punishment of criminal activities, as long as it is within the bounds of a well proven conviction for severe enough crimes. However, I'd have to know more about how the judicial system would impose such before I could make a firm decision on where I would stand. But I'd be open to the idea, pending more information...
So you are not opposed to slavery per se, what you object to is the
label "property" and the use of skin colour as the sole selection criteria for candidates.
Yes that's true. There aren't really any governments which will come out and endorse slavery anymore. But there are those who tacitly approve it by their laws and enforcement structure.
In which case shouldn't we presume that the slave is subject to due process of law?
This should always be condemned. The fact that the world cannot just step in and stop them is an unfortionate reality of a world which is very interdependent and in which there are few simple solutions. However, at the very least, this should be pointed out and grounds for diplomatic pressures.
But
why should it be condemned? We already agree that the real meat of slavery- denial of freedoms and forced labour- are not always condemnable, why should mere labels be? Do you have any reason apart from this moral certainty, the elusive source of which you have thus far failed to reveal?
So you would say you are a staunch and unwavering anti-fundamentalist?
I didn't, and wouldn't. Were I to believe so I would be prone to the same sort of error as our Mr. Plumbjam, tiltling at the windmills of a "Skeptical Orthodoxy" that exists only in his mind. No, even fundamentalism, like murder, has its place. It does not do for a soldier on the battlefield to question his superiors overmuch, or to epathise with his enemy- so as long as we have war, some measure of fundamentalism must be tolerated. It is not an accident that those who crusade for whatever cause they champion frequently adopt the language of war to describe their struggle, they seek to legitimise themselves. However, fundamentalism has no place in peacetime law, or government, or culture- it stifles discussion and discovery, it breeds error, and it hampers adaptation to changing circumstance.
There's an oxymoron in there somewhere.
There might be had I said that.
But I don't see the problem with being a anti-slavery or anti-genocide fundamentalist or an anti-corruption or anti-torture-of-innocent-civilians fundamentalist.
Because when you think you know all the answers you are guaranteed to be wrong at least some of the time. For instance- you claim to be "anti-slavery" but you only understand one tiny facet of the subject, and yet seem to agree with elements of it. Then there is the possibility that in certain circumstances "genocide" might be justifiable, and of course the question of what consitutes "corruption" or an "innocent civilian" is subjective at best. Any time you climb up on a soapbox without first questioning yourself, your beliefs, your sources, and your leaders you risk working against the very values you think you are working towards. Especially if your values are not related to bullying or dominating those that disagree with you.
That is correct, in a sense. Sometimes going to war is the only option to protecting national or international security or stopping an intolerable crime of some sort.
I don't really give any credence to that last item but yes, as long as humanity remains essentially the same biologically as we are now wars will happen.
Apologies if I cited Rwanda improperly. It was meant to provide an example of where an international community was willing to impose their will on a nation state which was committing crimes against it's own people.
Whether or not the actions of the international community in Rwanda, Bosnia or elsewhere were the most effective in achieving what was intended will be something for history to judge.
In Bosnia it was not simply human rights issues but also relating to the stability of the region and other factors.
These are of course, always very difficult decisions. Iraq is a good example of why invading another country by force can often cause more harm than good, even if the leadership is not exactly treating the people justly or fairly.
Again. Sorry for the imperfect examples.
Not a problem, they prove my point. You will not find a single example in reality where the "right action" was 100% certain, absolutely unquestionable, and completely objective.
Again, perhaps an imperfect examples. I'm simply saying that one's own shortcomings do not justify inaction or refusal to condemn something as obvious as slavery.
Have you given any consideration to the idea that it is not with the examples that the imperfection lies?
That's a start. You could also go with "parent of two small children the responsibility for which trumps any responsibility for a stranger" or "The woman may be a homicidal ex-lover with a gun and the man is defending himself" or "There are trained and armed professionals capable of handling the situation better than me". There are lots more. See how many you can come up with, it's fun!
The point is, the person in the apartment is not a superhero, he's not a crusader for justice, nor should he be. The world is f[rule X] all more complicated than such people think, or would like.
The same goes for depriving people of their rights and their freedoms, which is what slavery boils down too. When you wave your flag against "Slavery" and only mean "chattel slavery as it existed in the western hemisphere until the mid-1800's" you are engaging- whether you realise it or not, and I don't think you do- in equivocation.
No, and such a person is not required to go down themselves and assist such a woman. They could yell out their window, in the hopes of frightening the attacker away.
One did: "When one of the neighbors shouted at the attacker, "Let that girl alone!", Moseley ran away and Genovese slowly made her way towards her own apartment around the end of the building."
They could (most obvious answer) call the police.
They did: "One witness said his father called police after the initial attack and reported that a woman was "beat up, but got up and was staggering around." "A few minutes after the final attack, a witness, Karl Ross, called the police."
They could, after the attacker seems to have gone, go down with others to help bring the woman inside and bandage her wounds.
So many things wrong with this touching, heroic, heartwarming thought. First, they didn't know where she was, or that she needed immediate help: "She was seriously injured, but now out of view of those few who may have had reason to believe she was in need of help." "Only one witness (Joseph Fink) was aware she was stabbed in the first attack, and only Karl Ross was aware of it in the second attack." "Out of view of the street and of those who may have heard or seen any sign of the original attack, he proceeded to further attack her."
Second, they could have been putting themselves in mortal danger to do so: After the initial attack, "Other witnesses observed Moseley enter his car and drive away, only to return ten minutes later."
Thirdly, bandaging the wounds of a victim of a mortal stabbing attack is a bit more involved than slapping on an elastoplast and a kiss. I do not see any indication that any of the witnesses were trained or equipped to do more than watch her die even if they had found her.
Fourthly, "Police and medical personnel arrived within minutes of Ross' call".
They could do many things. They don't have to. Nobody can force them to.
But they did, and she still died.
They choose to do nothing.
No, they didn't.
Life is tragic and people are fallible. And the cow says moo. Thousands of other people died that day too, where are your crocodile tears for them?
All your philosophy and hypothetical situations of having children
That's not a hypothetical, that is my reason why I would not interfere with an assault in progress. In my moral code I value my responsibilities to those two children over even the lives of any stranger.
...or it being fighting lovers or whatever.
"Many were entirely unaware that an assault or homicide was in progress; some thought that what they saw or heard was a lover's quarrel or a drunken brawl or a group of friends leaving the bar outside when Moseley first approached Genovese."
Nobody decided to do the obvious and call for help or offer assistance.
This is wrong. Does that alter your unquestionable moral outrage at all?
Now someone is dead. And others have died in similar manners.
Boo f[rule x]g hoo. Seriously. Everybody dies. Was it fair for her? No, but who promised her life was fair? Did people try to help? Yes, and she died anyway. Even if one of the witnesses perfectly ascertained the nature of her cry and went out to be Batman, there is no guarantee that he'd have found her in time. There is no guarantee Batman could have stopped an armed man intent on killing someone- or even himself survived encountering the assailant. There is no reason to think that had Batman found her after the assailant had left that he's be able to do anything about her injuries- the murderer stated he went looking for "a woman to kill" and he inflicted injuries commensurate to that desire; even the trained professionals couldn't save her.
All your moral outrage here is misinformed, ridiculous, and frankly childish. If you meant to demonstrate the reason for your intolerance for slavery I have to say I find you reasoning specious and purile.
Yes, and that's really (how do I say this in a non-emotional and entirely subjective way)....
The word you should by looking for there is "objective". Learn the difference.
That would tend to be of concern to those who may find themselves in need of assistance, such as ocean going vessels,
Thousands of people died on the Titanic because other vessles didn't come to their aid- was this because they were mistaken in thinking the Titanic was unsinkable or because they decided not to help because morally the passengers should help themselves?
stranded motorists or others who would find themselves in a situation where their own safety could be entirely dependent on the assumption that at least one car, vessel or other person might be inclined to render assistance.
That seems like a mistake on the stranded motorist's part to me. Not a moral failing, but a mistake nonetheless. But the people that do not stop for him- do you think they don't stop because they philosophically worked out a reason he was to blame for his own tragedy, or are they reacting out of fear engendered by urban legends, horror movies, and the occasional graphic news story?
