No provider of defense is going to support the claim of the clerk.
By objective I mean observer independent. Objectivity is part of plain old metaphysical realism. I know there’s a real world out there and that it has its own nature, a nature independent of observations made by different human subjects.
If I say X is objective I mean that X is a fact of the real world. Not just something I believe to be true but something that is true, regardless of what I believe.
In the moral realm no person has authority over any other person. That’s a universal fact. If you look for justifications for government, you’ll notice that they are logically flawed. Government was allegedly justified because it had a divine origin (a joke) or government is justified because the majority says it is - another non-sequitur. The only option is to accept the objective fact that individuals are self-governing.
Well, I admit that sounds partially reasonable, but it’s not fully consistent, I believe. Now, the key issue is not robbery but the fact that the thief is armed and might kill, correct ?
On the other hand, if the justification for killing thieves is that they are aggressors and that any amount of force can be used to stop aggression then it follows that shooting children who steal candy is legitimate - which is something you might not be willing to concede.
So, the reason for killing the thief is not that he is a thief but that he is a potential murderer. And that raises a problem because killing the thief means that one party judges and executes the other party based just on guessing intentions.
For the record, I’ve no sympathy for thieves and I’ve even less sympathy if they carry weapons, so persons who go around threatening other persons are indeed asking for trouble. Yet dealing with them by execution-on-the-spot doesn’t sound like an optimal solution to me.
I’m not arguing self-ownership.
When you say “X is objective… X is a fact of the real world… regardless of what I believe.” I’m curious… then are you saying you are not objective? As in this “I believ(ing)” is not objective?
Then don’t give them what they want.
I’m saying that mistakes made by observers don’t change reality (since it is observer-independent). I might believe that the moon is made of green cheese. But that’s subjective opinion (or even fantasy), not objective fact.
You’re saying reality is objective (observer-independent), but what about the observer?
Well, on one hand the observer is part of reality and so in a sense is objective. On the other hand the observer sees things from his point of view - the whole subjectivity thing (which I don’t really deny.)
I’m not that sure what you’re getting at, though. Have my answers provided any clarification ?
The observer is “part of reality”… so, what do you call the other part of the observer if not reality?
If it’s ok with you I would still like to continue. It’s provided clarification thus far, yes.
Let me back up a bit.
Are you asking something in particular regarding the observer ?
Not sure what “the other part of the observer” alludes to ? Are you referring to consciousness, the self ?
No problem =]
Well, you said reality is independent of the observer (observer-independent). So I was wondering where the observer is if not in reality?
I don’t know. You said “the observer is ‘part’ of reality”. Did you mean only partly, as in not completely an aspect of reality? Reality is objective you said. So if the observer is ‘part’ of reality and the observer isn’t completely an aspect of reality/objective, then what’s the unreality part you are referring to?
Thanks
Yes, and by that I meant that facts are independent of the observer’s wishes, opinions and the like. Here’s what the dictionary says about “objective”. It’s not different from what I have in mind and it’s probably better defined than the way I’m defining it. Also, it kinda illustrates the point that some words do have accurate meanings.
So, if you admit that there’s some sort of reality out there, then “objective” means dealing with that reality. If on the other hand your metaphysics is something different from realism then the term “objective” is probably meaningless to you.
The observer is in reality. I don’t see why you go from “reality is observer independent” to “the observer is not in reality”.
Let’s say you’re standing in the street and a car is coming your way. As the car gets closer it looks bigger to you because of perspective. Now, is the car actually changing shape or is it just your perception of it that changes ?
The objective fact is that the car has a given shape. Your subjective perception doesn’t tell you that directly (although you can infer it).
I meant the observer exists - is real.
Wow. Way to ruin a thread everyone.
Good question.
The question is: Who has the authority to punish a transgressor? Answer: Only the person who has been victimized, and whoever he empowers as his agents.
Let me propose a counter scenario.
A man see’s his neighbor beating his wife. Intending to end this initiation of violence, the man rushes into their house and shoots his neighbor. Is he a good Samaritan or a murderer? That’s entirely up to the wife.
If you want to see this scenario in action, just watch an episode of Cops.
The store scenario does have some grey areas. Is the customer acting only on behalf of the clerk or is he personally threatened as well? For instance.
Though, the question is begged, what if the customer’s actions rather than getting the robber killed ended with the clerk dead?
Extra false.
You, a third party, do not get to decide what interventions into the interactions of others are justified. Now, perhaps the woman will be grateful for the aid and consider it “justified”. But she’s not going to be very grateful if who you thought was a rapist was really her boyfriend.
All in a day’s work for Pacifist Batman.
Yes, I understand that you’re saying “objective” is “based on facts… not influenced by personal feelings, etc…” But what of the observer? If objective or facts are “out there”, then that is stating that the observer is not objective.
2 points your making:
1 : “Independent” means “outside of” an “entity unto itself”, and objective is observer-independent… observer-outside of, meaning, outside of observer,
2 : if objective is reality, as you say, objective is “outside of” observer. So reality is outside of observer.
So the observer is objective? As you say, the observer “is real”?
Wow, that is nothing like the model that I saw at the beginning of this thread…lol
The judge will also take into account what the parties have to say about their thoughts and intentions. Yes, it’s understood that the thief isn’t able to speak for himself as to whether he intended to turn around and rob the shopper. But the shopper would be able to say what was uppermost in his own mind and why he acted as he did.
And in a scenario such as this one, who would bring the lawsuit in the first place?
As to the difference between children stealing candy and adults stealing money at knife- or gun-point, it is the essential difference between children and adults and also the fact of whether or not a weapon is being used. A child wielding a gun to steal from a shopkeeper should be treated as an adult. But a child pinching a few gummi bears and packs of gum should be treated with more leniency, I would say. So no, it’s not okay to shoot kids who are caught stealing candy.
Not quite the same thing. Pretty funny video though.
Yeah but the noise could have been bothering you.
That is not an appropriate question. Punishment is not even an issue.
The bystander has every right to feel threatened by witnessing a violent act even though he is not yet a victim.