posted
I interpreted it as attacking the general proposition with an obvious exception. It's clear that factors other than numbers should be taken into account when making life and death decisions. Relationship to the actor and moral standing of the potential decedent are both factors that most people would consider. The difference is where the lines are drawn on all three factors (numbers, relationship, and moral standing).
I think it's inaccurate to call someone a hypocrite because they draw the lines differently. And reading Paul's original statement on the subject as a denial that such lines exist is a lot like what others have been doing to Lisa throughout this thread.
There's a lot of miscommunication going on here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is also, I think, often a gap between how we behave and how we believe we should behave.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I interpreted it as attacking the general proposition with an obvious exception"
I think if you look back to my first post on this topic, its clear I'm talking about innocent people. I'm not going to argue that skinheads fall into the "innocent" category. I suppose I should have qualified my second post with an "all else being equal," to avoid that confusion though.
"Relationship to the actor and moral standing of the potential decedent are both factors that most people would consider."
Consider, yes, as in these will influence our actions. But I think when we consider someone closer to us to have more moral worth then someone who is further away, and say that it is more moral to save one life then another (disregarding moral standing) we fall into exactly the trap that has consumed israel/palestine for the last 100 years.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is also, I think, often a gap between how we behave and how we believe we should behave.
That also too often is called hypocrisy.
Acting differently than how one professes people should act can be a sign of hypocrisy, but it's not necessarily. The frequency and extent to which one's actions differ from one's professed beliefs are important in evaluating that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think if you look back to my first post on this topic, its clear I'm talking about innocent people. I'm not going to argue that skinheads fall into the "innocent" category. I suppose I should have qualified my second post with an "all else being equal," to avoid that confusion though.
I think if you look at my next paragraph it's clear I see that.
In case it's not, the failure to read the implicit limitation of your post to innocent people led to you being unfairly called a hypocrite and to the misunderstanding of your intent. I think the same thing has been done to Lisa. This does not excuse the wrongdoing done to either party.
quote:Consider, yes, as in these will influence our actions. But I think when we consider someone closer to us to have more moral worth then someone who is further away, and say that it is more moral to save one life then another (disregarding moral standing) we fall into exactly the trap that has consumed israel/palestine for the last 100 years.
I think that the closeness to oneself can affect the extent of the moral duty to act to save the life; it does not affect the worth of the person to be saved or not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is also, I think, often a gap between how we behave and how we believe we should behave.
That also too often is called hypocrisy.
Acting differently than how one professes people should act can be a sign of hypocrisy, but it's not necessarily. The frequency and extent to which one's actions differ from one's professed beliefs are important in evaluating that.
Sometimes it is weakness. One believes that one should do something (save 100 innocent strangers at the cost of someone closer for example) but is not capable of doing it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think that the closeness to oneself can affect the extent of the moral duty to act to save the life; it does not affect the worth of the person to be saved or not"
Sure. The more ability to save the life, the stronger the duty to do so. It is also possible to be in a position of gaurdianship over another person, in which case one has a strong moral duty to protect.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In case it's not, the failure to read the implicit limitation of your post to innocent people led to you being unfairly called a hypocrite and to the misunderstanding of your intent. I think the same thing has been done to Lisa.
Lisa has previously defined "innocent" in a way that excludes almost all Palestinians alive from innocence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: You're assuming how he'd react and calling him a hypocrite based on your assumption?
Just giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he'd let his own child die to save 100 skinheads, he isn't worth the dirt on the bottom of my shoe.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: She's also changing the scenario. There's two major fallacies in that post.
No, there aren't. Is your life currently at immediate risk from a random 100 skinheads? Unlikely.
And just because you draw the line of who constitutes you and yours tighter than I do doesn't excuse your behavior here.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In case it's not, the failure to read the implicit limitation of your post to innocent people led to you being unfairly called a hypocrite and to the misunderstanding of your intent. I think the same thing has been done to Lisa.
Lisa has previously defined "innocent" in a way that excludes almost all Palestinians alive from innocence.
Are you really this stupid, Tom? I've been rather explicit about not seeing the world in a black-white innocent-guilty way. There are levels of culpability. But I'm not going to waste my time repeating what I have to say about that. You can go back a few pages and read it for yourself.
I will note, however, that the fact that you intentionally obscured this and tried to set up this kind of false dichotomy is simply one more example of your dishonesty.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Levels of culpability? You repeatedly say that all Palestinians not actively protesting those who do direct violence against Israel are "just as guilty". Did you mean "guilty, but not quite as guilty"?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I think that the closeness to oneself can affect the extent of the moral duty to act to save the life; it does not affect the worth of the person to be saved or not"
Sure. The more ability to save the life, the stronger the duty to do so. It is also possible to be in a position of gaurdianship over another person, in which case one has a strong moral duty to protect.
Fine. Your sister. Who you have no position of guardianship over. She dies or 100 skinheads you've never met die. You have to choose.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, lets make the 100 skinheads include a good number of the very young children of skinheads, to at least be a little closer to a decent analogy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, fair enough. There are 100 skinheads, 10 of whom are under the age of 6. They'll die if you save your sister's life. Your sister, incidentally, isn't in danger because she's attacking the skinheads or anything. On the contrary, she's being threatened by more skinheads. You can let her die and save the 90 adult skinheads and their 10 children, or you can save her, and the skinheads die.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No, there aren't. Is your life currently at immediate risk from a random 100 skinheads? Unlikely. "
Yes, there are two major fallacies.
The first is that we'e talking about one innocent jewish life vs the life of innocent palestinians (numerous). By changing it to one innocent compared to 100 guilties (life threatened by), you've changed the scenario. You've also changed the scenario to one in which I have legal gaurdianship of one potential victim.
Then, based on my assumed reaction, you call me a hypocrite... but by changing the scenario, we're not discussing a situation where I say one thing and do another, so you're making a straw man argument, and then assuming my answer to your straw man is the same as my answer to the argument I present in order to make an ad hominem attack.
There might actually be more then two major fallacies in there, but I'm not going to try to deconstruct your post any further.
"doesn't excuse your behavior here."
And which behavior, EXACTLY, are we talking about that is not excuseable? I don't see anything in my post that isn't something you weren't doing with far fewer modifiers for the entirety of this thread before I made my first post in it.
Let me put in that qualifier that you've apparently missed.
If you put more moral value on the life of 1 jew then on 100 palestinians (all else being equal) then your moral system is evil.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Levels of culpability? You repeatedly say that all Palestinians not actively protesting those who do direct violence against Israel are "just as guilty". Did you mean "guilty, but not quite as guilty"?
You know, just for the hell of it, I went and did a search for "just as guilty" in any post of mine. You know how many hits I got?
None.
On the other hand, I did find this, from earlier in this very thread.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "No, there aren't. Is your life currently at immediate risk from a random 100 skinheads? Unlikely."
Yes, there are two major fallacies.
The first is that we'e talking about one innocent jewish life vs the life of innocent palestinians (numerous). By changing it to one innocent compared to 100 guilties (life threatened by), you've changed the scenario.
Nope. Not unless you can demonstrate that people are automatically "guilty" of something, like being a threat to your life, simply because they are skinheads. I'll stick with the analogy, thanks very much.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: You've also changed the scenario to one in which I have legal gaurdianship of one potential victim.
Good, so make it your sister. I don't care. Are you really so obtuse that you can't generalize?
That said, kol Yisrael areivim zeh la-zeh, so I don't accept your distinction anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: If you put more moral value on the life of 1 jew then on 100 palestinians (all else being equal) then your moral system is evil.
I don't do that because they are Palestinian Arabs. I do it because they are perpetrating war against me and mine. Whatever value their lives have is of no interest to me while they do that. Nor should it be.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I know for a fact that this thread has been whistled at least once--why is this discussion still operating? It's gone way beyond any sort of bounds for civilized discussion.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
