Re: The gun analogy (Was: Design Principles)

[Marcus Brinkmann]

Hi,

At Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:58:28 -0400,
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 16:59 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I will make this very brief:
> > 
> > It makes no sense to continue the discussion in a manner where you
> > always pick the narrowest and stupidiest interpretation of what I say,
> > without applying common sense, to then proceed to "disprove" me by
> > chosing this narrow interpretation and leading it ad absurdum.
> > 
> > That's just playing tricks, and I am not interested in playing tricks.
> 
> Neither am I. I was trying to make a legitimate point. Absolute
> positions in moral matters have the problem that they fail in real-world
> cases. Killing the injured horse is an example of a case where this
> occurs. When one person takes a dogmatic position, the opposing person
> only has to find *one* legitimate counterexample in order to demonstrate
> that the dogma is harmful.

You are insinuating that I have a dogmatic position.  This is not the
case, as is demonstrable by looking at what I actually said.  It is
also very easy to find out by asking me if I have a dogmatic position
(the answer is no).  I said, explicitely and with no possibility of
misunderstanding, that a weapon may be a useful tool, under
extraordinary circumstances.  This is not a dogmatic position, but
easily identified as a pragmatic position.

> I am not convinced that my example, which is a real-world example, was
> either narrow or stupid. If *you* think it is stupid, try looking at it
> from the horse's point of view.

I didn't say your example was narrow or stupid.  I said your
interpretation of what I actually said is narrow and stupid.  This is
one of your rhetorical tricks.  Another rhetorical trick is to
misunderstand my criticism of the rhetorical trick.

> Fundamentally, however, the point that we disagree on appears to be
> this:
> 
>   You believe that it is proper behavior to lecture others on why
>   they should not use "immoral" devices (technical means) in order
>   to solve legitimate problems.
>
>   I believe that this behavior is merely invasive, rude, and foolish.
>   The obligation of the truly moral actor is to find or build a more
>   appropriate tool.
> 
> In other words: complaining is bullshit. Propose a solution. Advocate
> that a solution be found. Participate, but don't tell people that they
> have no need or right to make legitimate use of the best available tool
> just because the tool is not perfect (or even actively dangerous).

Please tell me which quote from me you interpret as complaint.

I have proposed possible solutions, based on the details of the
examples that were known to me at the time when I replied.

Please show me what quote from me you interpret as me telling "people
that they have no need or right to make legitimate use of the best
available tool just because the tool is not perfect (or even actively
dangerous)."

> There are two further points that require discussion:
> 
>   1. Do there exist substantial legitimate uses of (true) confinement
>      that cannot be achieved by other means?
> 
>      If so, then banning true confinement is inappropriate.
> 
>   2. Does my use of true confinement cause harm to others?
> 
>      If not, then banning true confinement is inappropriate.

As nobody is talking about "banning" anything, the answer to these
irrelevant questions is appropriately a floppy sandal over your head.

Thanks,
Marcus