Jan persuades George Will to accept a principle

Jan persuades George Will to accept a principle!!!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• jan
• helfeld
• libertarian
• george
• will
• libertarianism
• liberty
• freedom
• economics

[janhelfeld]

"On what basis would he argue that we shouldn't murder innocent people?" On the basis that it will ruin your life. Further, if you want to riun your life and suffer then you have made the biggest mistake of all.

[whoo689]

George Will, a big conservative commentator, is a moral relativist?? Now I've seen it all!  I thought conservatives were big on absolute morality. wtf

[janhelfeld]

It surprised me as well.

[Beethovens7th]

What's funny about this is that George Will actually already did accept ONE principle before Jan brought up the one about murder. Will accepted the principle that there are no principles that one should always follow. Haha.

[starsassy]

Murder and stealing are legal when governments do it and illegal for all others.

[Darkwizzrobe]

@dooglio "Never say never" and "there are no absolutes"

[sternumagnum]

Meh. By "principles" GF Will understands "dogma". By saying he refuses to accept there exist always-acceptable principles, principles we should always "follow and obey", he's actually in libertarian territory! The interviewer and the interviewee are on different wave lengths, in this.

[dooglio]

"There are no principles that one should always follow" is a principle, as Beethovens7th pointed out a year ago. That is an excellent example of a self-imploding argument. Another example is "everything is in shades of gray," which is, in fact, a black and white argument.

[yuppyguitar1]

@Hostile My statement is COMPLETELY different. You said "You appear to hold that it is bad unless it achieves a goal, correct me if I'm wrong." I'm correcting you now. You've worded it as if I think murder is ok generally as long as it achieves some goal, which is NOT what I said.

[Hostile]

@yuppyguitar1 You hold that murder is bad unless "under a very specific circumstance". How does that differ from what I originally said? You think murder is okay if it achieves a goal.

The Fukushima comparison doesn't work, because in that scenario my actions don't affect anyone else. Neglecting to protect yourself is different from actively murdering others to achieve a goal.

[yuppyguitar1]

@Hostile No, we've both said murder is bad, and you've generalized what I've said about when it is ok to murder, when in fact I've said it is only ok under a very specific circumstance.

Not acting when you are fully aware of the consequences isn't an excuse in my book. Do you enter Fukushima without a radiation suit and say, well, it isn't my fault I got cancer 10 years later, the radiation caused it, not my own negligence.

[Hostile]

@yuppyguitar1 So by choosing not to commit the act I in fact cause it to happen? No, I disagree. I haven't 'caused' anything by refusing to partake. Guilt lies exclusively with the one who pulls the trigger.

I hold that murder is always bad. You appear to hold that it is bad unless it achieves a goal, correct me if I'm wrong. To me that's not good enough.

[yuppyguitar1]

@Hostile I think you're misunderstanding. We both agree murder is bad. But if murder is going to happen, its better to reduce it than increase it as your actions would in my first example.

If you cause huge evil by following an overly-simplistic principle, I would also say you don't know what you're doing. Yes the shooter pulls the trigger, but your actions are what determine whether or not the trigger is pulled.

[Hostile]

@yuppyguitar1 Nice puzzle, Jigsaw. I assume by "do you" you mean kill him, not ask him to throw up? The answer is "no" to the first one, "yes" to the second. If the person is innocent then I have no right to kill them, simple as that. I'm not about to go sacrificing other human beings. If they are guilty of creating this puzzle then yes, of-course I kill them. I've no principle against using defensive force or even killing in defense, I'm only opposed to initiating violence against the innocent.

[Hostile]

@yuppyguitar1 If you attempt to reduce evil by doing evil then you clearly don't know WHAT you're doing. If you believe that murder is okay when you have an excuse then why are you even against murder? Maybe the shooter has an excuse too