Subject:
|
Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:21:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1234 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message <380B0F8D.112B4FA6@eclipse.net>...
> Simon Robinson wrote:
>
> > I'm not so sure of that. Once you've got the sets that you're
> > (hypothetically) planning on holding for a year, there's nothing anyone
> > who wants to buy the sets earlier than that can do. This redistribution • may
> > have been instigated by a private individual rather than the Government
> > but that doesn't seem to have made it voluntary, as far as
> > people who may want the set in 1 months time are concerned. :)
>
> OK, it's as voluntary as anything ever is. I don't feel responsible to
> make things better than they can be.
>
> > > > Whether you're benefitting people I guess depends on
> > > > factors like whether people who had the sets now would have
> > > > got bored with them after a year and sold them anyway. You'd
> > > > certainly be denying people the chance to play with the sets now.
> >
> > > I guess what you're talking about is whether there is a net benefit.
> > > Clearly I'd be benifitting some people - the ones who buy them from me.
> >
> > Yeah there'd be certain people who would benefit in your example.
> > But is that outweighed by other people having been harmed?
>
> Well, I don't think anyone is harmed - unless I spend so much that I
> can't buy groceries. So the net benefit of the transactions is equal to
> whatever benefit there is.
>
> > And if
> > so then is a transaction still morally justified if the overall effect of • it
> > (taking the effect on _everyone_ into account) is negative, although the
> > particular people directly involved with the transaction benefit?
>
> Well, I suppose not. If a transaction of any kind will do more harm
> than good, it is not morally justified. But I suppose you'd have to
> measure the harm and good pretty carefully and we could never get three
> people to agree on how.
>
> > Ha ha - I thought I'd get challenged on that one. I think when assessing
> > the morality of an action, it's crucially important in principle to take
> > motives into account.
> >
> > For example:
> > Fred is driving back from work. It's been a hard day, which is why he's
> > tired. He makes the mistake of driving a bit faster than he ought to, • given
> > his weariness, which is why he runs over Sam (who was just crossing the
> > road) and kills her.
> >
> > Dave is driving back from work. He spots Paul up ahead, crossing the • road,
> > and thinks 'that's the git who used to pull faces at me in school'.
> > So instead of slowing
> > down to let Paul cross, he deliberately accelerates,
> > and runs Paul over and kills him.
> >
> > Both actions have exactly the same consequences. In both cases the driver
> > was in the wrong - but is anyone seriously going to argue that Fred's
> > 'wrongness' is as bad as Dave's?
>
> YES. I would. I am more offended by criminal negligence than by
> criminal purpose. I would work to punish them equally. And even then,
> I would have more respect for Dave. Now, you made it sound like Dave's
> reasoning was trivial (he was only slightly slighted), but what if Paul
> had been the leader of a group kids who had cornered Dave in the shower
> and anally raped him? Then, Fred would really have pissed me off, and I
> would think that Dave maybe needs to see a councilor to work out some
> issues, but otherwise Paul is exactly where he needs to be.
>
> So, I guess that I agree that motive matters at least in some cases, but
> I disagree with you on how. Diametrically.
I gotta agree - if somebody dies because of a person's actions, whether
intended or not, they are still dead. Instead of locking them up (which may
well be the best thing to do) the powers that be could find the problem and
focus on it... If the victim died due to an accident they could focus on
teaching some responsibility to the perp (somehow - however one does that).
If the victim dies because the perp intentionally killed him, then the
powers that be could find a different solution - teaching him how to
function correctly, and deal with his emotions in a human fashion. Still, I
can't say that the accidental murder is less offensive than the intentional
murder; they just require different punishment (perhaps).
> > > Right you are. In both cases, I feel that the activities are OK. And
> > > how can you KNOW what some 'criminal' is going to do with any given • tool
> > > that you might sell him?
> >
> > Because he's told you what he wants the weapon for? (I'm sure that must
> > happen in criminal circles)
>
> Probably in low-class criminal circles, probably not in higher ones.
> Professionals know about discretion. Well, I'm one of those Yank
> gun-nuts so I'm going to answer opposite of how you would.
>
> I still think supplying them a gun is fine. Here. Here, everyone has
> the right to guns. Period. (We have all kinds of restrictions in place
> that are illegally enforced by law enforcement agencies of all kinds.)
> That person is given the responsibility to decide what to do with it.
> If I personally felt sleazy giving a gun to someone because I knew (s)he
> was going to behave inappropriately, I would have the right not to - and
> would certainly do so. On the other hand, just because said buyer was
> going to commit crimes doesn't mean that I would feel that way. Killing
> the murderer of his daughter would be OK. Robbing federal property
> would be OK. Dusting a cop who's got a grudge against him and is
> abusing his power would be OK. There are lots of examples.
OK?? Whoa, man.
> > > I don't want to tell Europeans how to operate their lives, so I'm not
> > > sure how to approach this.
> >
> > I don't have a problem with that. I'm not going to be offended if you
> > express an opinion about how things work in Europe - just as
>
> Well, I'm not worried about offending you :-) but I really feel like
> it's not my business to correct your governance unless you get really
> out of hand. Really. It's your lives and your money. You may be as
> socialist or whatever as you like. I wish there were a broader range of
> governance philosophies so that we could better pick and choose where to
> go live. If El Salvador blossoms into Libertopia, I will go there once
> I trust its stability.
>
> > I often express opinions related to the USA in this debate.
>
> Somehow that seems different. I guess that has two parts. I'm more
> concerned about discussing the US, and so I'm willing to talk about it
> with foreigners. And I just don't know as much about foreign nations as
> I do about my own, so it would be silly for me to pontificate about
> their wrongs.
Lets pontificate on how messed up France is. That would be fun. At
least politics make sense there - after all, there are more than two sides
to every debate. There are almost 300 million people in the US, and only
two powerful political parties. No wonder the French laugh at us.
> Chris
--
Have fun!
John
Auctions and Trading and More at my Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
MOC,CA++++(6035)SW,TR,old(456)+++TO++PI,SP+#+++++
ig88888888@stlnet.com & IG88888888 on AOL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
| (...) OK, it's as voluntary as anything ever is. I don't feel responsible to make things better than they can be. (...) Well, I don't think anyone is harmed - unless I spend so much that I can't buy groceries. So the net benefit of the transactions (...) (25 years ago, 18-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
178 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
