Should protesters respect private property?

[MaineShark]

You argued that in an ungoverned society, everyone would have different ideas of when defensive force is warranted. A "pacifist" is just a special case, i.e., a person who believes the times when defensive force is warranted equals zero. If you believe that we could successfully converge everyone to this zero value, what makes you think it's impossible we couldn't converge everyone to some other nonzero value?

Oh, he does have a point in that it's very easy to set "zero" as the appropriate value, simply because it eliminates having to "do math" during one's life.  If the answer is always going to be "zero," one doesn't have to actual consider one's actions and figure out their implications.  You don't have to sort out the difference between aggression and defense in some complex situation, and such.

I think the "easy way" of pacifism is perfectly acceptable for those who aren't capable of rationally considering moral situations and arriving at an appropriate conclusion.  It's laudable of them to admit their incapacity and say, "because I know there's a good chance I would be wrong, I'm always going to err on the side of caution and do no violence at all."

It's not laudable when they assume that their own incapacity is shared by others, and demand that others behave the same as they do.

There are a lot of gun-control advocates who would not be able to control their temper if they had guns, but rather than just choosing to avoid guns, personally, they assume that all others are just as incapable as they are, and demand that all others be stripped of their ability to defend themselves in a civilized manner.

Rationalizing one's own failings onto others is not particularly healthy for any involved, and certainly does not show love of those others.

Joe

[J’raxis 270145]

I think that love is the only moral imperative. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

"Do unto others ..." and love are good guiding principles to live by, but they're not a good basis for a universal morality. If there's anything universal, it's the non-aggression principle.

Love has already been thoroughly debunked by previous posts. As for "do unto others ...", what if you're the kind of person who doesn't mind having someone else tell you what to do? Does this suddenly justify your attempting to control others, force them to do your bidding? What if you're suicidal?

[MaineShark]

As for "do unto others ...", what if you're the kind of person who doesn't mind having someone else tell you what to do? Does this suddenly justify your attempting to control others, force them to do your bidding?

Exactly.  You don't get to say, "I'm going to executed anyone I find with illegal drugs, because I would have no problem if someone did the same to me if they ever caught me with illegal drugs."

What if you're suicidal?

Caleb has already stated elsewhere that he thinks it's perfectly acceptable to use violence to prevent someone from committing suicide, as long as you claim to love that person.

Joe

[sandm000]

The problem with a moral philosophy is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Anyone's views will every day come into contact with others.  So is there some universal standard to which every individual can be held? simply no.  Even things considered severely taboo are or were practiced in other places or at other times (ie cannibalism and incest are two good examples).

However, if you look at a moral philosophy as a meme (or mind virus) you will see that evolution is occurring at a mental level.  A meme must keep itself alive.  If one of the basic tenets of your moral philosophy is that you must die (now), it isn't a very successful moral philosophy.  If the tenet is that you will die (eventually) this isn't relevant. So it then follows that a meme should serve to protect your interests and life so that you (and it) may continue to live. Further it may be considered part of the meme to grow or propagate itself as would a normal living creature, either by indoctrination of offspring of the host, or proselytizing to associates of the host.

To act between individuals you must only accept one premise and that is that your life is important to you.
You do not have to accept that my life is important to you, your life is important to me, or my life is important to me.  So run through all number of scenarios which involve our interaction, passing each other in the fields, courting one another, looking for food, anything really.  

5000 years ago the person who thought that their life was more important than yours and could physically take yours away was the one whose meme progressed to the next generation. (because you wouldn't be around to propogate your philosophy or your genes for that matter) Nowadays we have firearms which prevent this from happening because people are made physically equal (in face to face dealings). So the primary tenet becomes "I want to be important to me tomorrow", people won't likely start shooting places up because if they know you have a gun and the know that you believe "you are important to you" they are likely going to face extermination if they shoot.

In summation you shouldn't be a pacifist because I can claim that I am more important than you and you can't do anything to stop me.

[Russell Kanning]

"Do unto others ..." and love are good guiding principles to live by, but they're not a good basis for a universal morality. If there's anything universal, it's the non-aggression principle.

How about I "do unto others..." and you not aggress? I think that would be a good arrangment.

[Eli]

Sounds like a fantastic arrangement.

[Caleb]

Caleb has already stated elsewhere that he thinks it's perfectly acceptable to use violence to prevent someone from committing suicide, as long as you claim to love that person.

You know, Joe, this may all be word games and rhetoric for you. But it isn't for me. This is very real. Tens of thousands of Americans take their own lives each year. Even more think about it, plan it, or else try to kill themselves but fail. And each of those people have people who care about them and love them. Mothers. Fathers. Sons. Daughters. Husbands. Wives. Friends. And you have no idea how much it tears a person up inside to watch someone they love self-destruct. For you to sit back and play like you're some sort of super philosopher with your idiotic libertarian simpleton nonsense and mock people who live real lives and face REAL problems, problems you better hope to God you never have to deal with because frankly you don't have the resilience or moral fiber to cope with them, and moreover to call those people immoral because from your posh, comfortable seat as the armchair quarterback you think you'd do something different...well, I don't have enough words to describe how revolting that is to me. So before you open your trap, why don't you make sure you know what the hell you're talking about.

[MaineShark]

Caleb has already stated elsewhere that he thinks it's perfectly acceptable to use violence to prevent someone from committing suicide, as long as you claim to love that person.

You know, Joe, this may all be word games and rhetoric for you. But it isn't for me. This is very real. Tens of thousands of Americans take their own lives each year. Even more think about it, plan it, or else try to kill themselves but fail. And each of those people have people who care about them and love them. Mothers. Fathers. Sons. Daughters. Husbands. Wives. Friends. And you have no idea how much it tears a person up inside to watch someone they love self-destruct. For you to sit back and play like you're some sort of super philosopher with your idiotic libertarian simpleton nonsense and mock people who live real lives and face REAL problems, problems you better hope to God you never have to deal with because frankly you don't have the resilience or moral fiber to cope with them, and moreover to call those people immoral because from your posh, comfortable seat as the armchair quarterback you think you'd do something different...well, I don't have enough words to describe how revolting that is to me. So before you open your trap, why don't you make sure you know what the hell you're talking about.

Caleb, you're a punk child playing at being adult.  You think your own personal psychological problems should be forced on others.

For your information, not that it's any of your business whatsoever, I held a very dear friend's hand while she died as a result of choosing to no longer suffer with the pain of chronic disease she had battled with for years.  As long as she had been able to have children, she felt it was worth fighting, but when they told her that would no longer be possible, she decided that there was no longer a reason to live with the pain.  I respected her right to make that choice for herself then, and I still do now.  I loved her more than a punk like you could love anyone, and there's no a moment that she's any further from me than my own heart.

And you would have had me force her to endure the pain she was in, just because having her around would make my life more pleasant?  You are one sick cookie, Caleb.  Of course, we knew that when you started going on about how all the genocidal monsters in history were good folks who were just led astray...

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

I better not get on Caleb's bad side .... he will whoop up on me.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Of course he would have to return here to do it

[sandm000]

Suicide is painless. Or so the song goes.  Do you believe in God?  Have you heard the expression "God doesn't give you more than he can handle?"  If suicide is Him calling someone back to heaven, why would you fight it?  Suicides in my family? Yes, my Father's Brother's Wife and my Mother's Sister's Husband (It sounded like a suicide pact when I said my aunt and uncle)  They were in pain, one physical the other emotional.  Was I angry? You bet.  Was I sad? Yup. Was it my place to stop them? Only if I could have used superior logic to convince them to go on living.  Forcing them to stop is prolonging their pain.  Thereby decreasing the love in the world.

I think the greatest mistake in our society is assuming that all human life is worth something.  Regardless if it's Christopher Reeves (RIP) days in a wheelchair with a tracheotomy so he can breath, or Terry Schiavo (sp?) years in a hospital bed being a vegetable.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they were worthless people.  I'm saying if their lives became unbearable or not worth living, it is up to them to correct.

[MaineShark]

Was I angry? You bet.  Was I sad? Yup. Was it my place to stop them? Only if I could have used superior logic to convince them to go on living.  Forcing them to stop is prolonging their pain.  Thereby decreasing the love in the world.

Exactly.  Love is about caring for others, not forcing them to endure pain for your own personal benefit.

Of course, communists see the only purpose of others as being things to be used, not as people, so Caleb's reaction makes perfect sense.  Notice how all his statements are about the pain that others might suffer at the loss of a particular individual, and not are about what is best for that individual.  In his sick little world, it's okay to use others for your personal benefit, and he calls that "love."  Of course, he claims to love everyone, IIRC, so that would translate as him thinking that he can use anyone he wants for his own pleasure.

Those of us who actually know what love is would never dream of trying to use the ones we love.

Joe

[Caleb]

I better not get on Caleb's bad side .... he will whoop up on me.

No. You have humanity. It's these libertarian monsters who have no idea what it is to be a human that get on my bad side. He struck a nerve. And for him to compare someone who chooses medical euthanasia to deal with a terminal illness to someone who suffers from severe clinical depression only demonstrates his folly. Then again, Joe lives in Debateland. Not earth. I have put him on ignore. I can't think of any reason for me to speak to him ever again.

[Caleb]

Suicide is painless. Or so the song goes.  Do you believe in God?  Have you heard the expression "God doesn't give you more than he can handle?"  If suicide is Him calling someone back to heaven, why would you fight it?

I believe in God. Do you? How do you believe God works in the world?

I don't believe God is a monster. I don't believe he gives people terrible things like suicidal depression. I do believe that sometimes he uses other people to help out during our most trying times.

[Caleb]

Of course he would have to return here to do it

Don't make me come over there, Lloyd!