Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Apple
Ha ha ha! These are some great posts! To diverge slightly from the topic: Utilitarian Ethics is not the only system, and in any case it was developed for governing a large group of people. It was never meant to be used as a code for an individual in his personal moral situations. The fact that people keep trying to use it that way in no way means that that's what it's for.
Also: Correct me if I'm wrong here Mike, but doesn't the form in question actually ask if you are a convicted felon? If you are convicted then stating so on a form is not incriminating yourself. If you are in a gun shop and worried about legality, than you have probably already served your sentence.
Anyway, I gather that we've decided a couple things:
1) You must know yourself, and your weapon, so that you'll have some idea what it can do, and whether you actually are willing to carry it.
2) You need to be prepared to face every consequence of using any weapon you carry. This includes your own emotional backlash.
3) If you are trained in the weapon you choose to carry, you aren't that likely to be disarmed if you are actually using that weapon. (As opposed to holding it out a bit, and then cringing if you get rushed.)
4) Pepper spray is almost useless as a self defense tool.
5) Ridged systems of morality are not useful on a situational basis and language is difficult to communicate in.
Did I miss anything?
|
Sounds like you've hit the high points!
And yes, the form does ask about previous convictions - but it does so in order to establish whether or not one is
currently committing a crime - trying to illegally purchase a gun. Since answering "yes" would incriminate the buyer in the crime of purchasing a firearm as a convicted felon, the argument is usually enough to spark some debate. And for the record, I know it's an idiotic argument (and that the law actually does cover the problem) but I use the example to point out that there are basically two types of people when it comes to "logic." Interestingly, though, it's not far off from the real world. The story we're discussing in another thread about the terrorists being tried in London contained a heated debate as to whether or not the terrorists' martyrdom videos could be admissable as evidence. Each video amounts to a taped confession, but they are also self-incriminating. Hmmmm...
There are those who try to come up with logical systems that structure things to determine what's true and what isn't. Then there are those whose sole purpose is to write paradoxes to piss the first group off. It's the yin and yang of the logical world, balancing each other in the same way programmers and hackers, realists and idealists, Mr. Arieson and Jubaji do.
Ideally, the balance - the system of opposing forces - makes both sides better, right? Moralists have critics who point out flaws, and then the moralists have to adapt and improve to cover the contradictions. Likewise, there's no refuge in logic and reason because there will always be someone out there to point out the paradoxes and contradictions.
All things considered, one of the very best answers for this (and most) situation is found in neo-classicalist economics. It's the idea that you can't construct a perfect system and the human factor will always do the thing you least expect, regardless of how little it makes sense.