sjrapaport@watlion.UUCP (Steven J. Rapaport) (09/27/86)
In article <169@omssw1.UUCP> hays@omssw1.UUCP (Kirk Hays) writes: >> [Does that mean that a shopkeeper who doesn't carry a shotgun is >> asking to be robbed?] [-my wording [sjr]] >Yes. Here's a dogmatic idea: > > Societies that require individuals to be responsible for their > own defense have less violence and less crime than societies > (like ours) that strip the individual of these abilities. > >Remember, kiddies, the cops can't be everywhere! 8-{)} Don't usually get into these discussions, but this requires a second thought: Even assuming, Kirk, that your dogmatic idea can be backed up with statistics, (Which societies do you use, anyway?), I am a bit frightened by your conclusion. Going from "society will be less violent if everyone is required to defend themselves" to "people who don't defend themselves are asking for it" (Please correct me if I've missed the spirit of your argument) may be a faulty logic step. Is this your argument?: P1-> societies that require individuals to be resp. have less violence P2-> (contrapositive) societies that strip the individual of the ability to defend themselves are more violent P3-> (missing premise) individuals should take responsibility for their own self-defense even if their society prohibits this. C'n-> individuals who do not take responsibility for their own self-defense are asking for violence. As far as I can see, your argument falls apart without P3, which I think is a bit antisocial (literally). You slip by without it only by confusing an individual with their society. Please tell me (if possible, in well-reasoned logic) where my analysis is incorrect. My own thoughts: One of the definitions of evil is " a heirarchically organized system in which position in the heirarchy is determined by power." Cf. Dungeons and Dragons. For examples, read Tolkien, etc. How far is "everyone is responsible for their own defense" from this definition? Admittedly, in such societies, there may be less violence. But who wants to live that way? (The above is not guaranteed to be bug-free logic. Please feel free to debug.) -Steve Rapaport, University of Waterloo, !watmath!watlion!sjrapaport
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/02/86)
> In article <169@omssw1.UUCP> hays@omssw1.UUCP (Kirk Hays) writes: > > Societies that require individuals to be responsible for their > > own defense have less violence and less crime than societies > > (like ours) that strip the individual of these abilities. > > > >Remember, kiddies, the cops can't be everywhere! 8-{)} > > Don't usually get into these discussions, but this requires a second > thought: > >[text deleted] > P1-> societies that require individuals to be resp. have less violence > > P2-> (contrapositive) societies that strip the individual of the > ability to defend themselves are more violent > > P3-> (missing premise) individuals should take responsibility for their > own self-defense even if their society prohibits this. > > C'n-> individuals who do not take responsibility for their own self-defense > are asking for violence. > > As far as I can see, your argument falls apart without P3, which I think > is a bit antisocial (literally). You slip by without it only by confusing > an individual with their society. Please tell me (if possible, in > well-reasoned logic) where my analysis is incorrect. > By definition, P3 is antisocial. But does a society's values mean anything if the right to self-defense is denied? Do the values of a society that encourages genocide deserve any respect? In brief, the issue boils down to the single question, "Are human rights absolute, or dependent on the society?" If they are absolute, then the right of the individual takes precedence over the values of the society. If human rights are not absolute, what basis (other than "might makes right") do you have for opposition to majoritarian oppression? > My own thoughts: One of the definitions of evil is " a heirarchically > organized system in which position in the heirarchy is determined by > power." Cf. Dungeons and Dragons. For examples, read Tolkien, etc. > There are many other definitions of evil. The one above is a tremendously narrow definition of evil leaving out such actions as serial killers, racism, and a host of other evils. > How far is "everyone is responsible for their own defense" from > this definition? Admittedly, in such societies, there may be less > violence. But who wants to live that way? > Pretty far, at least in a society where mechanical leverage can equalize differences of physical strength. > (The above is not guaranteed to be bug-free logic. Please feel free > to debug.) > > -Steve Rapaport, University of Waterloo, !watmath!watlion!sjrapaport You asked for it. Clayton E. Cramer