Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who is at fault

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 11:13:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's say that there are two people, both of them armed with guns. We'll call them A and B.

B approaches A with clear intent to shoot and kill A. B also has a child strapped to his chest.

A shoots B in self defense, and ends up killing both the child and B.

Who is at fault for the death of the child: A or B?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 11:21:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:13:06 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Let's say that there are two people, both of them armed with guns. We'll call them A and B.

B approaches A with clear intent to shoot and kill A. B also has a child strapped to his chest.

A shoots B in self defense, and ends up killing both the child and B.

Who is at fault for the death of the child: A or B?

Clearly person A is at fault because he fired the bullet that killed the child - at least that's by tracing simple causation.

As for who has moral responsibility for the death of the child, that can be determined more or less arbitrarily. If you believe that both individuals have responsibility over the welfare of the child in the presence of such dangerous weapons then both are equally responsible. If you believe that person B endangered the life of the child and person A only had intention to defend himself against person B, then person B is entirely at fault. If you believe that person A should have attempted to escape the dangerous situation, should have had better training and aiming ability if he owned a gun or should have valued the life of the child above his own, then person A is at fault.

None of these are right or wrong and support of any is based on arbitrary preference determined by the socialization of moral values. I hope you enjoyed this very obvious but probably true response.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 11:35:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:13:06 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Let's say that there are two people, both of them armed with guns. We'll call them A and B.

B approaches A with clear intent to shoot and kill A. B also has a child strapped to his chest.

A shoots B in self defense, and ends up killing both the child and B.

Who is at fault for the death of the child: A or B?

Would... A be Israel and B be Hamas?
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 11:43:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:35:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/22/2014 11:13:06 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Let's say that there are two people, both of them armed with guns. We'll call them A and B.

B approaches A with clear intent to shoot and kill A. B also has a child strapped to his chest.

A shoots B in self defense, and ends up killing both the child and B.

Who is at fault for the death of the child: A or B?

Would... A be Israel and B be Hamas?

In this current conflict, I would side with Hamas any day.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 11:43:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:35:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/22/2014 11:13:06 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Let's say that there are two people, both of them armed with guns. We'll call them A and B.

B approaches A with clear intent to shoot and kill A. B also has a child strapped to his chest.

A shoots B in self defense, and ends up killing both the child and B.

Who is at fault for the death of the child: A or B?

Would... A be Israel and B be Hamas?

If you want to draw that comparison, go right ahead. The example is actually roughly drawn from Blackhawk Down.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 11:57:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:43:42 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/22/2014 11:35:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/22/2014 11:13:06 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Let's say that there are two people, both of them armed with guns. We'll call them A and B.

B approaches A with clear intent to shoot and kill A. B also has a child strapped to his chest.

A shoots B in self defense, and ends up killing both the child and B.

Who is at fault for the death of the child: A or B?

Would... A be Israel and B be Hamas?

If you want to draw that comparison, go right ahead. The example is actually roughly drawn from Blackhawk Down.

It's been years since I've seen that movie, and I hardly remember it.
Tsar of DDO
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 10:09:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:13:06 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Let's say that there are two people, both of them armed with guns. We'll call them A and B.

B approaches A with clear intent to shoot and kill A. B also has a child strapped to his chest.

A shoots B in self defense, and ends up killing both the child and B.

Who is at fault for the death of the child: A or B?

Person A would be at fault. Negligence at best, and intent to use the child as a shield at worst. Person A would ultimately be the cause for that babies demise, and Person B would be regarded as an excusable homicide.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 10:15:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I guess the better question to ask is about who is morally responsible for the death of the child?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 10:20:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you define 'fault' in this instance as 'whose actions -as opposed to other possible actions they could have taken - resulted in the death of the child, then they are both at fault.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 10:38:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 10:15:12 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I guess the better question to ask is about who is morally responsible for the death of the child?

I think the answer would depend on your interpretation of "moral". Most would probably agree that person B is at least partially morally responsible, since the events that lead to the child's death happened *because* of his choice to put the child in danger. What's less clear is whether person A is morally responsible. I think to be morally responsible, person A would have to have knowingly made the wrong choice in shooting person B.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 12:01:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:21:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
None of these are right or wrong and support of any is based on arbitrary preference determined by the socialization of moral values. I hope you enjoyed this very obvious but probably true response.

This, of course, is based on the assumption that no moral standard could have foundation in reality's syntax (its general rules of structure and evolution). I.e., that no statement in the form "according to reality, X is preferable to Y" could be true. Fortunately, there are very good reasons to believe this is not the case.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 12:25:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's the short explanation:

The universe has nothing but the identity of the universe with which to comprise the universe. The universe is therefore self-configuring, since the universe must define the universe coherently using nothing but itself. In order to refine itself from nothingness, the universe must provide itself with an explanation for why it exists, and must seek to maximize its self-defined utility over the entire range of possible state-syntax relationships. In that potential, there is freedom, since the universe has not yet completely defined itself. It then retroactively "selects" potentials that are consistent with its own intentionality.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 2:17:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 12:25:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Here's the short explanation:

The universe has nothing but the identity of the universe with which to comprise the universe. The universe is therefore self-configuring, since the universe must define the universe coherently using nothing but itself. In order to refine itself from nothingness, the universe must provide itself with an explanation for why it exists, and must seek to maximize its self-defined utility over the entire range of possible state-syntax relationships. In that potential, there is freedom, since the universe has not yet completely defined itself. It then retroactively "selects" potentials that are consistent with its own intentionality.

lol I don't know what any of that means, and for the time being I don't really care to. I suppose I'm waiting for CTMU to be taken seriously and reviewed in academia before I invest the effort in understanding it. Tentatively, my view of ethics is that it can't bear truth value since ethical statements don't attempt to describe reality but an ideal state (whereas truth is the agreement between a description of reality and reality in fact).

We could still debate around CTMU though.
I would imagine that any philosophy that successfully objectifies behavioral preferences would also successfully objectify color, food, and music preferences, to name a few.... where preference is defined as a positive valuation of a specific thing/event over all other possible things/events.

I would also imagine that any philosophy that successfully objectifies ethics would in some way conflict with the principles of evolution, which suggest that our ethical tendencies are contingent on survival, bear no universal significance, and therefore would not have arisen were it not for that exigency.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 2:30:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 2:17:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/23/2014 12:25:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Here's the short explanation:

The universe has nothing but the identity of the universe with which to comprise the universe. The universe is therefore self-configuring, since the universe must define the universe coherently using nothing but itself. In order to refine itself from nothingness, the universe must provide itself with an explanation for why it exists, and must seek to maximize its self-defined utility over the entire range of possible state-syntax relationships. In that potential, there is freedom, since the universe has not yet completely defined itself. It then retroactively "selects" potentials that are consistent with its own intentionality.

lol I don't know what any of that means, and for the time being I don't really care to.

The universe is everything exists. "What exists" is defined by the universe itself, since such a definition must exist in order for the universe to only be that which exists. The universe is therefore self-defining i.e. everything is caused by reality's self-configuration.

I suppose I'm waiting for CTMU to be taken seriously and reviewed in academia before I invest the effort in understanding it.

Considering Academia's (bad) track-record of being right, I find this to be quite irrational. You're of course free to do what you want.

Tentatively, my view of ethics is that it can't bear truth value since ethical statements don't attempt to describe reality but an ideal state (whereas truth is the agreement between a description of reality and reality in fact).

That's not true. Ethics is the study of what is objectively preferable. Such a preference can be objective if it is backed by reality itself.


We could still debate around CTMU though.
I would imagine that any philosophy that successfully objectifies behavioral preferences would also successfully objectify color, food, and music preferences, to name a few.... where preference is defined as a positive valuation of a specific thing/event over all other possible things/events.

Are the laws of physics an observable, or are they only known through their effects on matter? The answer is the latter of course. But does that mean they don't "exist"?


I would also imagine that any philosophy that successfully objectifies ethics would in some way conflict with the principles of evolution, which suggest that our ethical tendencies are contingent on survival, bear no universal significance, and therefore would not have arisen were it not for that exigency.

I don't see why that would be true.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 2:35:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 2:17:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/23/2014 12:25:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

We could still debate around CTMU though.
I would imagine that any philosophy that successfully objectifies behavioral preferences would also successfully objectify color, food, and music preferences, to name a few.... where preference is defined as a positive valuation of a specific thing/event over all other possible things/events.

I read this wrong lol. Can you provide some reasoning as to why you think this is?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 2:56:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 2:35:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:17:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/23/2014 12:25:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

We could still debate around CTMU though.
I would imagine that any philosophy that successfully objectifies behavioral preferences would also successfully objectify color, food, and music preferences, to name a few.... where preference is defined as a positive valuation of a specific thing/event over all other possible things/events.


I read this wrong lol. Can you provide some reasoning as to why you think this is?

There's no way to really elaborate on why preference of any sort is subjective without speaking in circles. Preference is defined by value, and value is defined by an ideal, and an ideal is not a state but a preferred state, and since objectivity necessitates truth value (specifically that which is true irrespective of the perception that it is true), and truth can only be assessed for statements describing reality, and ethical statements don't describe reality but a preference for reality, they cannot be true and therefore cannot be objective. In this cycle there is no anchor onto reality as it IS. Therefore the preference that states that theft is wrong is as "true" as the preference that states that blue is better than red. Both assign value to something and neither describes reality for what it is - they're 2 different expressions of subjectivity so whatever argument that could define ethics as objective would have to overcome the fundamentally subjective nature of preference- and would therefore apply to other expressions of preference (i.e color).

Also, in your previous post I don't know what you mean by academia has a bad record on correctness. Academia isn't unified - it's simply a platform for ideas to be exchanged and reviewed, where multiple perspectives are developed and represented. Essentially, I'm waiting for the people experienced, intelligent and educated enough to make informed judgments on CTMU to do so - which is rational, no?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:13:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 2:56:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:35:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:17:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/23/2014 12:25:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

We could still debate around CTMU though.
I would imagine that any philosophy that successfully objectifies behavioral preferences would also successfully objectify color, food, and music preferences, to name a few.... where preference is defined as a positive valuation of a specific thing/event over all other possible things/events.


I read this wrong lol. Can you provide some reasoning as to why you think this is?

There's no way to really elaborate on why preference of any sort is subjective without speaking in circles. Preference is defined by value, and value is defined by an ideal, and an ideal is not a state but a preferred state, and since objectivity necessitates truth value (specifically that which is true irrespective of the perception that it is true), and truth can only be assessed for statements describing reality, and ethical statements don't describe reality but a preference for reality, they cannot be true and therefore cannot be objective. In this cycle there is no anchor onto reality as it IS. Therefore the preference that states that theft is wrong is as "true" as the preference that states that blue is better than red. Both assign value to something and neither describes reality for what it is - they're 2 different expressions of subjectivity so whatever argument that could define ethics as objective would have to overcome the fundamentally subjective nature of preference- and would therefore apply to other expressions of preference (i.e color).

You're limiting "what exists" to "state". But state is not the only thing which exists. States conform to (and are transformed by) the logical syntax in terms of which they are expressed. Physical laws are an example of this. The universe's "morality" resides in its syntax. The reason that reality's moral standard is not perfectly embodied by its state is because it is in the process of defining what that state entails.

Also, in your previous post I don't know what you mean by academia has a bad record on correctness. Academia isn't unified - it's simply a platform for ideas to be exchanged and reviewed, where multiple perspectives are developed and represented. Essentially, I'm waiting for the people experienced, intelligent and educated enough to make informed judgments on CTMU to do so - which is rational, no?

Ike, it's clearly not that simple. Langan explains how it *actually* works in this essay: http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:19:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:13:06 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Let's say that there are two people, both of them armed with guns. We'll call them A and B.

B approaches A with clear intent to shoot and kill A. B also has a child strapped to his chest.

A shoots B in self defense, and ends up killing both the child and B.

Who is at fault for the death of the child: A or B?

Person B - the person who ultimately brought a child (intentionally) to a criminal act with a deadly weapon is the one ultimately (morally and legally) responsible for the child's death in this (your) example.

Person A would only have to make the case that he/ she 'reasonably believed' that the use of deadly force was necessary to defend his/ herself.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:22:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:13:06 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Let's say that there are two people, both of them armed with guns. We'll call them A and B.

B approaches A with clear intent to shoot and kill A. B also has a child strapped to his chest.

A shoots B in self defense, and ends up killing both the child and B.

Who is at fault for the death of the child: A or B?

Both. A would not have shot were it not for the provocation of B, and B would not have died were it not for A's choice to defend himself.

That's just establishing cause/effect, where there are multiple causes. Clearly though this is a less exaggerated version of a pedestrian dying after a car crashes and spins into her. The pedestrian technically did cause her own death to an extent by choosing the higher risk option of walking outside, whereas the car driver also bears some of the cause from losing control.

In both cases, it would be the primary conscious cause that is at fault morally.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:30:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:22:56 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/22/2014 11:13:06 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Let's say that there are two people, both of them armed with guns. We'll call them A and B.

B approaches A with clear intent to shoot and kill A. B also has a child strapped to his chest.

A shoots B in self defense, and ends up killing both the child and B.

Who is at fault for the death of the child: A or B?

Both. A would not have shot were it not for the provocation of B, and B would not have died were it not for A's choice to defend himself.

That's just establishing cause/effect, where there are multiple causes. Clearly though this is a less exaggerated version of a pedestrian dying after a car crashes and spins into her. The pedestrian technically did cause her own death to an extent by choosing the higher risk option of walking outside, whereas the car driver also bears some of the cause from losing control.

In both cases, it would be the primary conscious cause that is at fault morally.

As a licensed gun owner and one who carries a gun just about every-day... I find the claim that I might be at 'fault' for the death of an attacker if I shoot to defend myself - to be hysterical.

Thank Gawd our self defense laws already hold the attackers responsible for the outcomes and not those of us who are only defending ourselves against their attacks.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:33:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:30:34 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:56 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/22/2014 11:13:06 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Let's say that there are two people, both of them armed with guns. We'll call them A and B.

B approaches A with clear intent to shoot and kill A. B also has a child strapped to his chest.

A shoots B in self defense, and ends up killing both the child and B.

Who is at fault for the death of the child: A or B?

Both. A would not have shot were it not for the provocation of B, and B would not have died were it not for A's choice to defend himself.

That's just establishing cause/effect, where there are multiple causes. Clearly though this is a less exaggerated version of a pedestrian dying after a car crashes and spins into her. The pedestrian technically did cause her own death to an extent by choosing the higher risk option of walking outside, whereas the car driver also bears some of the cause from losing control.

In both cases, it would be the primary conscious cause that is at fault morally.

As a licensed gun owner and one who carries a gun just about every-day... I find the claim that I might be at 'fault' for the death of an attacker if I shoot to defend myself - to be hysterical.

Thank Gawd our self defense laws already hold the attackers responsible for the outcomes and not those of us who are only defending ourselves against their attacks.

That's why I made a distinction between the cause and who is at fault. Clearly a conscious decision that could have been made differently on both ends yielded the conclusion, ergo both are sentient causes for the incident.

A good example of seeing this in practice is in air crash investigations, where it is very rare for there to be just one, singular cause for an accident, but instead multiple causes which congregate to cause the failure.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:33:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

You're limiting "what exists" to "state". But state is not the only thing which exists. States conform to (and are transformed by) the logical syntax in terms of which they are expressed. Physical laws are an example of this. The universe's "morality" resides in its syntax. The reason that reality's moral standard is not perfectly embodied by its state is because it is in the process of defining what that state entails.

I'll give you credit in that I have no response to this as it actually addresses my argument and raises a new point I hadn't considered. That's the first time that's happened. I'll look into it,... maybe..... probably not. But, I now have more doubt about my perspective than before if that counts for anything. :)

Also, in your previous post I don't know what you mean by academia has a bad record on correctness. Academia isn't unified - it's simply a platform for ideas to be exchanged and reviewed, where multiple perspectives are developed and represented. Essentially, I'm waiting for the people experienced, intelligent and educated enough to make informed judgments on CTMU to do so - which is rational, no?

Ike, it's clearly not that simple. Langan explains how it *actually* works in this essay: http://www.debate.org...

Nothing about that response implied simplicity, and perhaps he's working with a more narrow definition of academia, but that essay is comprised of a series of assertions and generalizations regarding the universities specifically, the institution of education as a whole and the very characters of the people involved. I should remind you, since we're discussing track records here, that Langan isn't necessarily known for his savvy & foresight with these matters (for heavens sake he chose a full scholarship to Reed College over full scholarship to UChicago because he didn't know the difference and his only response to that decision is regret). So, his argument, at least to me, is of dubious credibility.

I read outliers yesterday, and Gladwell actually made some commentary about this:
"Even in his discussion of Harvard, it's as if Langan has no conception of the culture and particulars of the institution he's talking about. When you accept a paycheck from these people, it is going to come down to what you want to do and what you feel is right versus what the man says you can do to receive another paycheck. What? One of the main reasons college professors accept a lower paycheck than they could get in private industry is that university life gives them the freedom to do what they want to do and what they feel is right. Langan has Harvard backwards." (pg 97)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:36:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:33:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:30:34 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:22:56 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/22/2014 11:13:06 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Let's say that there are two people, both of them armed with guns. We'll call them A and B.

B approaches A with clear intent to shoot and kill A. B also has a child strapped to his chest.

A shoots B in self defense, and ends up killing both the child and B.

Who is at fault for the death of the child: A or B?

Both. A would not have shot were it not for the provocation of B, and B would not have died were it not for A's choice to defend himself.

That's just establishing cause/effect, where there are multiple causes. Clearly though this is a less exaggerated version of a pedestrian dying after a car crashes and spins into her. The pedestrian technically did cause her own death to an extent by choosing the higher risk option of walking outside, whereas the car driver also bears some of the cause from losing control.

In both cases, it would be the primary conscious cause that is at fault morally.

As a licensed gun owner and one who carries a gun just about every-day... I find the claim that I might be at 'fault' for the death of an attacker if I shoot to defend myself - to be hysterical.

Thank Gawd our self defense laws already hold the attackers responsible for the outcomes and not those of us who are only defending ourselves against their attacks.

That's why I made a distinction between the cause and who is at fault. Clearly a conscious decision that could have been made differently on both ends yielded the conclusion, ergo both are sentient causes for the incident.

A good example of seeing this in practice is in air crash investigations, where it is very rare for there to be just one, singular cause for an accident, but instead multiple causes which congregate to cause the failure.

I understand your point. However, your answer to the question "who is at fault?" was "BOTH."

The question was not about who "caused" the death.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:49:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:33:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

You're limiting "what exists" to "state". But state is not the only thing which exists. States conform to (and are transformed by) the logical syntax in terms of which they are expressed. Physical laws are an example of this. The universe's "morality" resides in its syntax. The reason that reality's moral standard is not perfectly embodied by its state is because it is in the process of defining what that state entails.

I'll give you credit in that I have no response to this as it actually addresses my argument and raises a new point I hadn't considered. That's the first time that's happened. I'll look into it,... maybe..... probably not. But, I now have more doubt about my perspective than before if that counts for anything. :)



Nothing about that response implied simplicity,

It did in a certain sense...that academia can be accurately characterized by the few flattering words you used to describe it.

and perhaps he's working with a more narrow definition of academia, but that essay is comprised of a series of assertions and generalizations regarding the universities specifically, the institution of education as a whole and the very characters of the people involved. I should remind you, since we're discussing track records here, that Langan isn't necessarily known for his savvy & foresight with these matters (for heavens sake he chose a full scholarship to Reed College over full scholarship to UChicago because he didn't know the difference and his only response to that decision is regret). So, his argument, at least to me, is of dubious credibility.

I read outliers yesterday, and Gladwell actually made some commentary about this:
"Even in his discussion of Harvard, it's as if Langan has no conception of the culture and particulars of the institution he's talking about. When you accept a paycheck from these people, it is going to come down to what you want to do and what you feel is right versus what the man says you can do to receive another paycheck. What? One of the main reasons college professors accept a lower paycheck than they could get in private industry is that university life gives them the freedom to do what they want to do and what they feel is right. Langan has Harvard backwards." (pg 97)

Gladwell fails to identify the fundamentals at play here. Although academics aren't necessarily interesting in amassing huge fortunes for themselves, they ARE interested in keeping their position and getting a pay check well they're at it (that's their only source of income usually).
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:57:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:49:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:33:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

You're limiting "what exists" to "state". But state is not the only thing which exists. States conform to (and are transformed by) the logical syntax in terms of which they are expressed. Physical laws are an example of this. The universe's "morality" resides in its syntax. The reason that reality's moral standard is not perfectly embodied by its state is because it is in the process of defining what that state entails.

I'll give you credit in that I have no response to this as it actually addresses my argument and raises a new point I hadn't considered. That's the first time that's happened. I'll look into it,... maybe..... probably not. But, I now have more doubt about my perspective than before if that counts for anything. :)




Nothing about that response implied simplicity,


It did in a certain sense...that academia can be accurately characterized by the few flattering words you used to describe it.

and perhaps he's working with a more narrow definition of academia, but that essay is comprised of a series of assertions and generalizations regarding the universities specifically, the institution of education as a whole and the very characters of the people involved. I should remind you, since we're discussing track records here, that Langan isn't necessarily known for his savvy & foresight with these matters (for heavens sake he chose a full scholarship to Reed College over full scholarship to UChicago because he didn't know the difference and his only response to that decision is regret). So, his argument, at least to me, is of dubious credibility.

I read outliers yesterday, and Gladwell actually made some commentary about this:
"Even in his discussion of Harvard, it's as if Langan has no conception of the culture and particulars of the institution he's talking about. When you accept a paycheck from these people, it is going to come down to what you want to do and what you feel is right versus what the man says you can do to receive another paycheck. What? One of the main reasons college professors accept a lower paycheck than they could get in private industry is that university life gives them the freedom to do what they want to do and what they feel is right. Langan has Harvard backwards." (pg 97)

Gladwell fails to identify the fundamentals at play here. Although academics aren't necessarily interesting in amassing huge fortunes for themselves, they ARE interested in keeping their position and getting a pay check well they're at it (that's their only source of income usually).

Those are inescapable consequences of any activity involving monetary compensation. Please explain to me how this permits Langan to pigeonhole academia and present it (quite melodramatically) as a complete facade. What about all the brilliant people and innovations that came out of academia? They man augments minor flaws that are unspecific to the institution of education and uses that as reason to shun it entirely. Gladwell didn't fail to identify anything, he pointed out a discrepancy in Langan's understanding of the way universities work.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:10:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:57:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:49:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:33:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:13:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

You're limiting "what exists" to "state". But state is not the only thing which exists. States conform to (and are transformed by) the logical syntax in terms of which they are expressed. Physical laws are an example of this. The universe's "morality" resides in its syntax. The reason that reality's moral standard is not perfectly embodied by its state is because it is in the process of defining what that state entails.

I'll give you credit in that I have no response to this as it actually addresses my argument and raises a new point I hadn't considered. That's the first time that's happened. I'll look into it,... maybe..... probably not. But, I now have more doubt about my perspective than before if that counts for anything. :)




Nothing about that response implied simplicity,


It did in a certain sense...that academia can be accurately characterized by the few flattering words you used to describe it.

and perhaps he's working with a more narrow definition of academia, but that essay is comprised of a series of assertions and generalizations regarding the universities specifically, the institution of education as a whole and the very characters of the people involved. I should remind you, since we're discussing track records here, that Langan isn't necessarily known for his savvy & foresight with these matters (for heavens sake he chose a full scholarship to Reed College over full scholarship to UChicago because he didn't know the difference and his only response to that decision is regret). So, his argument, at least to me, is of dubious credibility.

I read outliers yesterday, and Gladwell actually made some commentary about this:
"Even in his discussion of Harvard, it's as if Langan has no conception of the culture and particulars of the institution he's talking about. When you accept a paycheck from these people, it is going to come down to what you want to do and what you feel is right versus what the man says you can do to receive another paycheck. What? One of the main reasons college professors accept a lower paycheck than they could get in private industry is that university life gives them the freedom to do what they want to do and what they feel is right. Langan has Harvard backwards." (pg 97)

Gladwell fails to identify the fundamentals at play here. Although academics aren't necessarily interesting in amassing huge fortunes for themselves, they ARE interested in keeping their position and getting a pay check well they're at it (that's their only source of income usually).

Those are inescapable consequences of any activity involving monetary compensation. Please explain to me how this permits Langan to pigeonhole academia and present it (quite melodramatically) as a complete facade. What about all the brilliant people and innovations that came out of academia?

Langan's view of academia is much more complex than "academia sucks and does nothing". Basically, he would describe it as follows: academia consists of some very smart people who do great things, but how it functions and how it is organized - that it runs on orthodoxy, that is chooses its members not based on merit, but on superficial tests of academic achievement while excluding academic outsiders regardless of intelligence or profundity of thought, means that it does not do justice to the people who comprise it or could comprise an improved version of it. In other words, Langan thinks Academia is inefficient and stifling...that it displaces the true intellectual potential of mankind while pretending it is fair, efficient and open to all.

They man augments minor flaws that are unspecific to the institution of education and uses that as reason to shun it entirely. Gladwell didn't fail to identify anything, he pointed out a discrepancy in Langan's understanding of the way universities work.

I'll have to disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:25:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:10:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Langan's view of academia is much more complex than "academia sucks and does nothing". Basically, he would describe it as follows: academia consists of some very smart people who do great things, but how it functions and how it is organized - that it runs on orthodoxy, that is chooses its members not based on merit, but on superficial tests of academic achievement while excluding academic outsiders regardless of intelligence or profundity of thought, means that it does not do justice to the people who comprise it or could comprise an improved version of it. In other words, Langan thinks Academia is inefficient and stifling...that it displaces the true intellectual potential of mankind while pretending it is fair, efficient and open to all.

The point of this argument is ultimately that you're suggesting the following:

1. Academia does not offer a credible review of ideas
2. The description of academia as a platform for free exchange of ideas is inaccurate

You're mostly quoting Langan directly here, and in actuality those quotes aren't appropriate in this argument. At least among the individuals involved (irrespective of the process of entry), the point of teaching, studying and performing research in universities is that they have the resources and freedom to allow robust intellectual exchange. If Langan's argument is "academia is good but could be better" then that's insufficient to justify either claim 1 or 2.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:28:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:25:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:10:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Langan's view of academia is much more complex than "academia sucks and does nothing". Basically, he would describe it as follows: academia consists of some very smart people who do great things, but how it functions and how it is organized - that it runs on orthodoxy, that is chooses its members not based on merit, but on superficial tests of academic achievement while excluding academic outsiders regardless of intelligence or profundity of thought, means that it does not do justice to the people who comprise it or could comprise an improved version of it. In other words, Langan thinks Academia is inefficient and stifling...that it displaces the true intellectual potential of mankind while pretending it is fair, efficient and open to all.

The point of this argument is ultimately that you're suggesting the following:

1. Academia does not offer a credible review of ideas
2. The description of academia as a platform for free exchange of ideas is inaccurate

You're mostly quoting Langan directly here, and in actuality those quotes aren't appropriate in this argument. At least among the individuals involved (irrespective of the process of entry), the point of teaching, studying and performing research in universities is that they have the resources and freedom to allow robust intellectual exchange. If Langan's argument is "academia is good but could be better" then that's insufficient to justify either claim 1 or 2.

do note that Langan's qualms with the academe extend beyond barred entry and into restrictions and control UPON entry - which is largely where he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:41:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:25:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:10:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Langan's view of academia is much more complex than "academia sucks and does nothing". Basically, he would describe it as follows: academia consists of some very smart people who do great things, but how it functions and how it is organized - that it runs on orthodoxy, that is chooses its members not based on merit, but on superficial tests of academic achievement while excluding academic outsiders regardless of intelligence or profundity of thought, means that it does not do justice to the people who comprise it or could comprise an improved version of it. In other words, Langan thinks Academia is inefficient and stifling...that it displaces the true intellectual potential of mankind while pretending it is fair, efficient and open to all.

The point of this argument is ultimately that you're suggesting the following:

1. Academia does not offer a credible review of ideas
2. The description of academia as a platform for free exchange of ideas is inaccurate

1. No, I think it doesn't necessarily. More accurately, I think the statement "currently, academia offers credible review of ideas" is false.

2. This is true.


You're mostly quoting Langan directly here

I was trying to paraphrase as best I could :)

and in actuality those quotes aren't appropriate in this argument. At least among the individuals involved (irrespective of the process of entry), the point of teaching, studying and performing research in universities is that they have the resources and freedom to allow robust intellectual exchange.

I think you should be careful when distinguishing between what academia claims to be (and ought to be) and how it really operates. I think the "obviousness" of academia's ability to distinguish between true and false is precisely the problem.

If Langan's argument is "academia is good but could be better" then that's insufficient to justify either claim 1 or 2.

lol...Langan has described academia as being in a state of crisis...I'm not sure if that qualifies as "good".