Here is another case about trigger happy people.  >:( >:( >:(  This story just pisses me off.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6416320.html



Cat


Very sad and very stupid. I said it recently: any retard with a clean record and $400 can get a gun. Two retards did. A kid is dead from it - it makes me mad as well, Catwoman.

Their actions were so far outside of reason that I'm left to wonder if they didn't have mental illlneses or were on drugs at the time of the shooting.

Ant

Very sad and very stupid. I said it recently: any retard with a clean record and $400 can get a gun. Two retards did. A kid is dead from it - it makes me mad as well, Catwoman.

Their actions were so far outside of reason that I'm left to wonder if they didn't have mental illlneses or were on drugs at the time of the shooting.

Ant


I'd sell the gun to the 'tards, but I wouldn't sell 'em any ammo.  I'd tell them bullets are very dangerous but the gun itself is okay so long as they don't threaten anybody with it.

Then if they buy ammo elsewhere and gun some folks down, I won't be held responsible!
:D

I'll admit it; I'm red-blooded when it comes to guns.  That's mostly because I can't stand the posturing of people who come up with the most ridiculous excuses to demonize guns.
For "ridiculous excuses", read "statistics".


The man in this situation did something positive with a gun, and you can't even admit it.

No, I can admit that it has happened - what I'm trying to get you to admit is that something negative happens when a gun is used way more often than something positive.


I might be "judge, jury, and executioner", but at least I'm not afraid of guns.

It's people like you that make me afraid of guns.

Using a gun does not make one a man. Stepping up in any adverse situation is what I was referring to, not the display of a firearm. Had the man with the gun physically wrestled the wreckless driver out of the car, or used his own vehicle to prevent his escape, he would have stepped up all the same. In this day and age, using a cellphone to call the cops instead of taking pictures or video of the scene would have been manly.



It's not apt to use on Username, but I can accept it used on me.

I'll admit it; I'm red-blooded when it comes to guns.  i think that's a big part of the problem is the ease with which the assumption gets made that gun support is somehow inherently masculine or "red blooded." i totally don't see it that way. i mean, i suppose it is in some instances, but just as often vociferous gun support seems to mask a lot of underlying insecurities specifically where some folks see their masculinity, "red bloodedness" or self-reliance to be most under threat.

look at the case catwoman cites... the contrast between the self-image of the shooters and their tough-guy "don't tread on me" persona, and the reality that they live in a "small house on stilts" and apparently can't afford an attorney. here are folks whose self-image is deeply invested in gun culture ("Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be reshot!!") but in reality they dont appear to be capable of providing for themselves, and instead use gun culture and its concomitants (the rebel flag, the varmints-get-off-my-lawn mentality) as a way to compensate for shortcomings in life management that they themselves are surely, deep down, aware of.

i hasten to add, i'm not trying to harsh out the texas shooters in cat's case because they don't own much. i'm speculating that they're personally insecure about their circumstance, and that's why they were so aggressive and violent in defending what little they had. they wanted to feel bigger than they were, because they didn't accept the life they'd made for themselves.

now obviously gun culture is neither all compensation nor all selfless heroism but lies somewhere in between. but i think the assumption that a unyielding pro-gun mentality equates automatically with "red-bloodedness" needs serious examination.

oo! sarcasm! you hardly ever see that.


Sure you do.  Remember this post?

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=36782.msg1981266#msg1981266

Pleased to meet you, Mr. Dahmer!
8-P


Shuuush!  Jeffrey never used a gun!

For "ridiculous excuses", read "statistics".
No, I can admit that it has happened - what I'm trying to get you to admit is that something negative happens when a gun is used way more often than something positive.
It's people like you that make me afraid of guns.


Exactly, who needs self-defense when your law enforcement is flawless?

i think that's a big part of the problem is the ease with which the assumption gets made that gun support is somehow inherently masculine or "red blooded." i totally don't see it that way. i mean, i suppose it is in some instances, but just as often vociferous gun support seems to mask a lot of underlying insecurities specifically where some folks see their masculinity, "red bloodedness" or self-reliance to be most under threat.

look at the case catwoman cites... the contrast between the self-image of the shooters and their tough-guy "don't tread on me" persona, and the reality that they live in a "small house on stilts" and apparently can't afford an attorney. here are folks whose self-image is deeply invested in gun culture ("Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be reshot!!") but in reality they dont appear to be capable of providing for themselves, and instead use gun culture and its concomitants (the rebel flag, the varmints-get-off-my-lawn mentality) as a way to compensate for shortcomings in life management that they themselves are surely, deep down, aware of.

i hasten to add, i'm not trying to harsh out the texas shooters in cat's case because they don't own much. i'm speculating that they're personally insecure about their circumstance, and that's why they were so aggressive and violent in defending what little they had. they wanted to feel bigger than they were, because they didn't accept the life they'd made for themselves.

now obviously gun culture is neither all compensation nor all selfless heroism but lies somewhere in between. but i think the assumption that a unyielding pro-gun mentality equates automatically with "red-bloodedness" needs serious examination.


Well, Tia, I've decided that it's much more productive to demonize guns and to not bother attempting to intervene in treacherous situations like the OP.

As Foo Bar pointed out, the way the laws are set up, you risk a good chance of getting sued if you do bother to intervene.

Sure you do.  Remember this post?

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=36782.msg1981266#msg1981266
that struck me a lot more as defeatist cynicism than sarcasm, actually.

Here is another case about trigger happy people.  >:( >:( >:(  This story just pisses me off.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6416320.html

Cat


This is horribly sad.  And exactly the type of situation I mean where the book should be thrown at the criminal.

Tresspassing is not justification of using deadly force.  And anybody that thinks it is should not own a gun.  Or if they do, should be locked up for life.

This is simple murder.  And I hope it is treated that way.

here's a picture of the house with that infamous sign from another article.

http://www.chron.com/photos/2009/05/08/16585007/260xStory.jpg

Well, Tia, I've decided that it's much more productive to demonize guns and to not bother attempting to intervene in treacherous situations like the OP.

As Foo Bar pointed out, the way the laws are set up, you risk a good chance of getting sued if you do bother to intervene.


Meh, I go away for a couple of days and the whole thread blows up.  LOL.

Lemme clarify what I actually meant. 

When the threat's over, you don't fire. 

My point wasn't about our legalistic society, because I'm not talking about the rules written by lawyers.  I'm not talking about "legal" vs. "illegal", I'm talking about (in Western civ) "right" and "wrong".  (Hey, the torture thread's that-a-way...)

In western civilization, they've been in every code of combat from the playground, to the Geneva conventions, to friggin' Fight Club.  You don't kick a man when he's down.  You don't shoot a man carrying a white flag.  When someone says stop, or goes limp, even if he's just faking it, the fight is over.

You don't follow these rules because you're afraid of getting sued -- you follow these rules because you're part of Western civilization, and in order to be the good guy, you've gotta play by those rules. 

That applies to cop and civilian alike.  The only difference between cops and little people is that if a cop is found to have used excessive force, he gets a paid vacation, and the civilian goes to jail.  And if there too many civilian-operated cameras around for the cops to confiscate, and there's a credible threat of riots, then even the cop might end up in jail.

If the guy had continued to drive his car (a deadly weapon) towards the civilian, the civilian would have been within his rights to fire.  But the bad guy stopped.  Threat down.  Fight over. 

When the fight is over, you don't fire, no matter how badly you might want to, and no matter how badly you think the guy might deserve it.  If the punk doesn't feel lucky, even Dirty Harry doesn't shoot.  Nobody said being the good guy was easy, but it's the difference - in western civ - between being one of the good guys and being just another outlaw.

You don't follow these rules because you're afraid of getting sued -- you follow these rules because you're part of Western civilization, and in order to be the good guy, you've gotta play by those rules. 


My rationale is a bit different.  It's not about being good or evil, it's about rational self-interest.  Morality is subjective, but self-interest can be logically expounded upon with regard to everyday actions.

My rationale is a bit different.  It's not about being good or evil, it's about rational self-interest.  Morality is subjective, but self-interest can be logically expounded upon with regard to everyday actions.

So you're uncivilized and amoral?  I knew there was a reason to be scared that you carry a gun around.

So you're uncivilized and amoral?  I knew there was a reason to be scared that you carry a gun around.
now now. just because macphisto's spent the last couple days hurling insults at a crippled woman, that's no reason to call him "uncivilized."

now now. just because macphisto's spent the last couple days hurling insults at a crippled woman, that's no reason to call him "uncivilized."

I agree - that's not why I'm calling him "uncivilized": I'm doing that because he said:

My rationale is a bit different.  It's not about being good or evil, it's about rational self-interest.  Morality is subjective, but self-interest can be logically expounded upon with regard to everyday actions.

...he'll go along with being civilized while he considers it within his own self-interest.

i was brooding over that this morning: if someone accidentally runs over two little girls, wouldn't "rational self-interest" dictate that he try to speed off if he thinks he can get away with it? after all, if you stick around after accidentally running over kids you might get sued or face criminal charges and that would hardly be in one's "self-interest."

Only if you thought you could get away: if you were fairly sure that you'd been spotted and recognized/number plate taken, then rational self-interest would be to stop so you don't get done for running away, too.

Only if you thought you could get away: if you were fairly sure that you'd been spotted and recognized/number plate taken, then rational self-interest would be to stop so you don't get done for running away, too.
and yet macphisto's outrage at this guy appears to be moral in nature. i kinda agree with you, i think this dude seems to have acted strictly in his own self-interest -- he tried to get away, and then when he determined he couldn't, he gave up. so why is macphisto so mad at him? he just seems to be carrying out this "rational self-interest" philosophy.

i was brooding over that this morning: if someone accidentally runs over two little girls, wouldn't "rational self-interest" dictate that he try to speed off if he thinks he can get away with it? after all, if you stick around after accidentally running over kids you might get sued or face criminal charges and that would hardly be in one's "self-interest."



That implies that you are generalizing everyone to try to "get away with it"...I would get out and make sure I didn't cause too much damage to the little girls, but maybe that makes me a mutant because I actually have a conscience.

i was brooding over that this morning: if someone accidentally runs over two little girls, wouldn't "rational self-interest" dictate that he try to speed off if he thinks he can get away with it? after all, if you stick around after accidentally running over kids you might get sued or face criminal charges and that would hardly be in one's "self-interest."



It is a bit more complicated.  What you have to do is this:


Determine the total "pain" the perp would incur if he sticks around the scene of the crime.  Call this variable P.
Determine how much "pain" he will incur if he makes a run for it and gets caught.  Call this C.
Determine how much guilt-derived pain he will have if he runs and gets away with it, call this G.
Now, you have to determine the probability of getting nabbed if you make a run for it.  We'll call this Z, which is a value from 0 (never will get caught) to 1 (I am so stupid it is almost certain I will get caught)
Therefore the total amount of "pain" (variable X)  that the perp should expect to get from hauling azz is the equation  X = ( Z * C ) + ( ( 1 - Z) * G )
If X is less than P then he should put the pedal to the metal.


And that is today's lession in risk management.

;)

So you're uncivilized and amoral?  I knew there was a reason to be scared that you carry a gun around.


Uh no.  Research the basis for Objectivism.  I don't agree much with Rand's economic views, but I do like her explanation of morals.

Nearly everything we do can be traced back to self-interest -- rational self-interest.

No need to be afraid though...  because most of my actions will be identical to those of conventional morality.  There are a few cases where I diverge, but that's out of practicality.


It is a bit more complicated.  What you have to do is this:


Determine the total "pain" the perp would incur if he sticks around the scene of the crime.  Call this variable P.
Determine how much "pain" he will incur if he makes a run for it and gets caught.  Call this C.
Determine how much guilt-derived pain he will have if he runs and gets away with it, call this G.
Now, you have to determine the probability of getting nabbed if you make a run for it.  We'll call this Z, which is a value from 0 (never will get caught) to 1 (I am so stupid it is almost certain I will get caught)
Therefore the total amount of "pain" (variable X)  that the perp should expect to get from hauling azz is the equation  X = ( Z * C ) + ( ( 1 - Z) * G )
If X is less than P then he should put the pedal to the metal.


And that is today's lession in risk management.

;)


Thank you, LyricBoy.  You actually get it.

and yet macphisto's outrage at this guy appears to be moral in nature. i kinda agree with you, i think this dude seems to have acted strictly in his own self-interest -- he tried to get away, and then when he determined he couldn't, he gave up. so why is macphisto so mad at him? he just seems to be carrying out this "rational self-interest" philosophy.


I realized my error was in getting mad at him.  As you suggested earlier, it was probably just an accident, and the guy's fear (and resulting lapse in judgment) was understandable.

Then again, so was the lapse in judgment of Torti in that other thread.

"Rational self-interest" would mean not being the cause of an accident.

Ant

"Rational self-interest" would mean not being the cause of an accident.

Ant




Yes, but realizing that would require thinking rationally, wouldn't it?  ;)

Maybe the Randroids would say it is in your rational self-interest to LOOK WHERE THE F**K YOU'RE GOING in the first place!  That is, once the sonofabitch ran over the kids, he demonstrated he was not really self-interested.  

HOWEVER, if the driver wanted to renew his subscription to self-interest after the fact, then you get into the philosophical argument as to where moral conscience for the greater good meets self-interest.  Here the Randroids would quickly side with Judeo-Christian morality and tell the driver to turn himself in.  He'd ask, "But how is it in my self-interest to my ass sued off and then incarcerated for reckless driving and vehicular homicide?"  If you have to ask, then it isn't.  In old Germanic law, there was no corrective penalty for homicide.  What they had was a Weregild, a price for the man.  This jibes much easier with simplistic objectivism as it leaves out the moral gray area and gives you a tangible cost to pay for damages done.  

Speaking of the Randroids, one of those guys from the Ayn Rand Institute for Objectionable People totally stepped in it on the Thom Hartmann show a couple of weeks ago.  Thom quoted Upton Sinclaire's "The Jungle" as an argument against the Objectionable guy's free market POV, and the Objectionable guy scoffed, "Well, if you're going to get your ideas from some novel..."
:D


"Rational self-interest" would mean not being the cause of an accident.

Ant



As above, you and I were thinking basically the same thing.

Maybe the Randroids would say it is in your rational self-interest to LOOK WHERE THE F**K YOU'RE GOING in the first place!  That is, once the sonofabitch ran over the kids, he demonstrated he was not really self-interested.  

HOWEVER, if the driver wanted to renew his subscription to self-interest after the fact, then you get into the philosophical argument as to where moral conscience for the greater good meets self-interest.  Here the Randroids would quickly side with Judeo-Christian morality and tell the driver to turn himself in.  He'd ask, "But how is it in my self-interest to my ass sued off and then incarcerated for reckless driving and vehicular homicide?"  If you have to ask, then it isn't.  In old Germanic law, there was no corrective penalty for homicide.  What they had was a Weregild, a price for the man.  This jibes much easier with simplistic objectivism as it leaves out the moral gray area and gives you a tangible cost to pay for damages done.  

Speaking of the Randroids, one of those guys from the Ayn Rand Institute for Objectionable People totally stepped in it on the Thom Hartmann show a couple of weeks ago.  Thom quoted Orwell's "1984" in an argument against the Objectionable guy's argument, and the Objectionable guy scoffed, "Well, if you're going to get your philosophy from some novel..."
:D


I think you're still missing one important thing here...  It all comes back to the likelihood of being caught.

In most cases, you're not going to get away with a hit and run.

Here's why...  In many cases, there are witnesses.  In other cases, you might hit the person, but they won't die, so they can give a decent description of you if you choose to leave the scene.  Then, of course, if you decided that killing the victim would save you from being caught, that doesn't make much sense either, since murders get much more attention from law enforcement than just non-fatal hit and runs -- which increases the chances they'll actually catch you due to them putting more effort into the investigation.

So, 99% of the time, you might as well turn yourself in.

I think you're still missing one important thing here...  It all comes back to the likelihood of being caught.

In most cases, you're not going to get away with a hit and run.

Here's why...   In many cases, there are witnesses.  In other cases, you might hit the person, but they won't die, so they can give a decent description of you if you choose to leave the scene.  Then, of course, if you decided that killing the victim would save you from being caught, that doesn't make much sense either, since murders get much more attention from law enforcement than just non-fatal hit and runs -- which increases the chances they'll actually catch you due to them putting more effort into the investigation.

So, 99% of the time, you might as well turn yourself in.


I just hate to think there are people who are that devoid of conscience, but I know there are!
::)

"Rational self-interest" would mean not being the cause of an accident.

Ant


so rational self-interest will actually eliminate all accidents, forever? wow. i might actually be interested in it, then.

so rational self-interest will actually eliminate all accidents, forever? wow. i might actually be interested in it, then.


Being rational would be a nice change from you.

I just hate to think there are people who are that devoid of conscience, but I know there are!
::)


Laws exist because of the innate selfishness of mankind.  If we were naturally moral in the "conventional" sense, we wouldn't need laws or jails.

so rational self-interest will actually eliminate all accidents, forever? wow. i might actually be interested in it, then.


Why the constant sarcasm?

Ant

Why the constant sarcasm?

Ant
im trying to understand your point. i'm actually not being sarcastic, i'm literally restating your point, which is apparently that people with "rational self-interest" never have accidents. please let me know where i'm wrong.

Laws exist because of the innate selfishness of mankind.  If we were naturally moral in the "conventional" sense, we wouldn't need laws or jails.


Of course, the question as to whether mankind is "naturally moral" is still being hashed-out by philosophers and will still be a thousand years from now.  It's a question far beyond the scope of this thread.

Being rational would be a nice change from you.
this is just childish.

im trying to understand your point. i'm actually not being sarcastic, i'm literally restating your point, which is apparently that people with "rational self-interest" never have accidents. please let me know where i'm wrong.


No, people who consistently follow rational self-interest are less likely to be in accidents.

No one's reason or reflexes are flawless though.

Then again, few people actually follow rational self-interest in a consistent or comprehensive way, which is why many selfish acts are extremely shortsighted.

im trying to understand your point. i'm actually not being sarcastic, i'm literally restating your point, which is apparently that people with "rational self-interest" never have accidents. please let me know where i'm wrong.


Maybe they have more accidents because they're too busy worrying about whether they're being rationally self-interested to keep their eyes on the road!
:D

No, people who consistently follow rational self-interest are less likely to be in accidents.

No one's reason or reflexes are flawless though.

Then again, few people actually follow rational self-interest in a consistent or comprehensive way, which is why many selfish acts are extremely shortsighted.
well, first of all, that's not what red ant was saying. he said that following "rational self-interest" means not being the cause of an accident.

i'm befuddled by the apparent implication here, which is that people apparently decide to get into accidents. i suppose sometimes people do, but i don't see where being "self-interested" (and if there's a difference between this and being plain "selfish," i guess i'm not clear what it is) is going to have any effect, other than deleterious, on rate of accidents. avoiding accidents often means driving defensively, letting people get away with things you rationally shouldn't let them get away with, yielding even when you have right of way, etc. this is the opposite of self-interest/selfishness.

...as an aside, I think most authorities call car crashes "collisions" now rather than "accidents" because it's usually someone's fault, therefore not a true "accident".

Carry on.

...as an aside, I think most authorities call car crashes "collisions" now rather than "accidents" because it's usually someone's fault, therefore not a true "accident".

Carry on.
well in the future this should be pretty easy to figure out. in any 'collision', just find out which driver has read ayn rand. that writer will be the one with rational self-interest, and therefore the accident must be the fault of whoever's left.  :P

well, first of all, that's not what red ant was saying. he said that following "rational self-interest" means not being the cause of an accident.

i'm befuddled by the apparent implication here, which is that people apparently decide to get into accidents. i suppose sometimes people do, but i don't see where being "self-interested" (and if there's a difference between this and being plain "selfish," i guess i'm not clear what it is) is going to have any effect, other than deleterious, on rate of accidents. avoiding accidents often means driving defensively, letting people get away with things you rationally shouldn't let them get away with, yielding even when you have right of way, etc. this is the opposite of self-interest/selfishness.


A few things...

Selfishness in the context we normally think of is shortsighted.

Rational self-interest is a cognitive process where you weigh your options in a given situation with the long term in mind.  It's not as involved as it sounds if you're used to doing it a lot.  After a while, it becomes a reflex.

Letting people get away with being crazy drivers makes sense from the viewpoint of a typical motorist, because if you drive slowly and keep your distance from other drivers, you're less likely to get hit.  When in heavy traffic, you have less choices, but if you assume that everyone around you is somewhat unobservant of traffic laws and is only moderately proficient at driving, you will drive in more careful ways.

I'm a pretty defensive driver (as Ant can attest), so I don't tailgate people and I often anticipate mergers by moving away from them when I can.

All of this is rational self-interest, because I want to avoid a wreck at all costs.

well, first of all, that's not what red ant was saying. he said that following "rational self-interest" means not being the cause of an accident.

i'm befuddled by the apparent implication here, which is that people apparently decide to get into accidents. i suppose sometimes people do, but i don't see where being "self-interested" (and if there's a difference between this and being plain "selfish," i guess i'm not clear what it is) is going to have any effect, other than deleterious, on rate of accidents. avoiding accidents often means driving defensively, letting people get away with things you rationally shouldn't let them get away with, yielding even when you have right of way, etc. this is the opposite of self-interest/selfishness.


I would say most "accidents" are caused by negligence on somebody's part, which is a goodly portion of tort law.  The question is the degree and consequences of one's negligence.  No matter how much we exercise rational self-interest, I know of no human who is 100% rational 100% of the time.


...as an aside, I think most authorities call car crashes "collisions" now rather than "accidents" because it's usually someone's fault, therefore not a true "accident".

Carry on.

You guys are moving just a little too fast for me!
;)

well in the future this should be pretty easy to figure out. in any 'collision', just find out which driver has read ayn rand. that writer will be the one with rational self-interest, and therefore the accident must be the fault of whoever's left.  :P


Never read Ayn Rand but I am aware of their existence...

A few things...

Selfishness in the context we normally think of is shortsighted.

Rational self-interest is a cognitive process where you weigh your options in a given situation with the long term in mind.  It's not as involved as it sounds if you're used to doing it a lot.  After a while, it becomes a reflex.

Letting people get away with being crazy drivers makes sense from the viewpoint of a typical motorist, because if you drive slowly and keep your distance from other drivers, you're less likely to get hit.  When in heavy traffic, you have less choices, but if you assume that everyone around you is somewhat unobservant of traffic laws and is only moderately proficient at driving, you will drive in more careful ways.

I'm a pretty defensive driver (as Ant can attest), so I don't tailgate people and I often anticipate mergers by moving away from them when I can.

All of this is rational self-interest, because I want to avoid a wreck at all costs.
doesn't that all rate a big 'no duh'? it's best to avoid accidents for everyone involved. i kinda knew that already. but unless you can turn off all human emotion, mr. spock style (which, actually, to be fair you seem pretty well on your way in that regard) this all seems like a bit of a truism to me.

I would say most "accidents" are caused by negligence on somebody's part, which is a goodly portion of tort law.  The question is the degree and consequences of one's negligence.  No matter how much we exercise rational self-interest, I know of no human who is 100% rational 100% of the time.


Whoever said humans were logical?

doesn't that all rate a big 'no duh'? it's best to avoid accidents for everyone involved. i kinda knew that already. but unless you can turn off all human emotion, mr. spock style (which, actually, to be fair you seem pretty well on your way in that regard) this all seems like a bit of a truism to me.


Mr. Spock couldn't contain himself in that one episode where he "killed" Kirk but then realized he was still alive, and had a momentary burst of joy.

Mr. Spock couldn't contain himself in that one episode where he "killed" Kirk but then realized he was still alive, and had a momentary burst of joy.
well if you know the lore, spock was actually only half libertarian vulcan, so...

Whoever said humans were logical?


Is being rational part of being logical or is being logical part of being rational?  Do tell, Mr. Spock!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/grommit.gif

well if you know the lore, spock was actually only half libertarian vulcan, so...


You are correct 8)  Therefore he is partly illogical.

Is being rational part of being logical or is being logical part of being rational?  Do tell, Mr. Spock!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/grommit.gif


Logic by default requires some form of rationale, no?

I would say most "accidents" are caused by negligence on somebody's part, which is a goodly portion of tort law.  The question is the degree and consequences of one's negligence.  No matter how much we exercise rational self-interest, I know of no human who is 100% rational 100% of the time.
i'd sorta nuance this a bit to say that the law is set up to determine fault in most instances, because to have accidents where no one's at fault is more difficult for the system to absorb. i think a lot of accidents (and other legal situations) everyone's actions are somewhat understandable but if the law saw it that way, it would be much harder to sort out who pays for what.

to bring up a contentious argument from another thread -- the accident where the lady pulled the other lady out of a car because lady A thought (probably because she was drunk and stoned, which makes you paranoid) that the car was about to explode... in that situation the consequences were way out of proportion to the offense anyone committed, and yet the Law is determined to hold someone accountable...

doesn't that all rate a big 'no duh'? it's best to avoid accidents for everyone involved. i kinda knew that already. but unless you can turn off all human emotion, mr. spock style (which, actually, to be fair you seem pretty well on your way in that regard) this all seems like a bit of a truism to me.


You asked the question.  I gave the answer.  Just because it wasn't counterintuitive doesn't mean it's incorrect or negligible.

In fact, it kind of proves my point.  Naturally, you actually use rational self-interest in some of your decisions.  Like me, you have self-interests in mind.  The difference is that many people assume that compassion makes them different.  It doesn't.  Compassion is both emotional and linked somewhat to rational self-interest because of certain instincts we have.

What Objectivism seems to encourage is the disciplined control of compassion.  Logic is practically superior to emotion.  What makes us different from animals is our intellect, and most often, it is the disciplined focus of logic over emotion that results in more productive choices rather than following tradition or instinct.

Logic by default requires some form of rationale, no?

Ah, but rationality must presuppose a logical structure vis-a-vis its mechanism, to be sure?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/bs.gif

Ah, but rationality must presuppose a logical structure vis-a-vis its mechanism, to be sure?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/bs.gif


Did we just go chicken-egg?

You asked the question.  I gave the answer.  Just because it wasn't counterintuitive doesn't mean it's incorrect or negligible.

In fact, it kind of proves my point.  Naturally, you actually use rational self-interest in some of your decisions.  Like me, you have self-interests in mind.  The difference is that many people assume that compassion makes them different.  It doesn't.  Compassion is both emotional and linked somewhat to rational self-interest because of certain instincts we have.

What Objectivism seems to encourage is the disciplined control of compassion.  Logic is practically superior to emotion.  What makes us different from animals is our intellect, and most often, it is the disciplined focus of logic over emotion that results in more productive choices rather than following tradition or instinct.

i kinda think we'd all be living in a much better world if ayn rand had decided to become a stripper.  ;D

i actually think compassion and emotion, not "logic" -- which i think when you're using the word logic what you actually mean is strict utilitarianism; logic is sorta different and abstract, applying formal rules to axioms to derive conclusions, etc., it tends to have little to say about concrete life situations -- but i'm always seeing animals setting aside emotion and compassion in favor of self-interest. it's called predatory behavior, and the state of nature is basically made of it. that's what i've always seen objectivism and libertarianism ultimately leading to, a kind of anti-civilization. civilization has always been about pooling our resources because we're stronger as tribes, nations and as a species when we work together than when everyone's running around doing what's best for them as individuals.

i'd sorta nuance this a bit to say that the law is set up to determine fault in most instances, because to have accidents where no one's at fault is more difficult for the system to absorb. i think a lot of accidents (and other legal situations) everyone's actions are somewhat understandable but if the law saw it that way, it would be much harder to sort out who pays for what.

to bring up a contentious argument from another thread -- the accident where the lady pulled the other lady out of a car because lady A thought (probably because she was drunk and stoned, which makes you paranoid) that the car was about to explode... in that situation the consequences were way out of proportion to the offense anyone committed, and yet the Law is determined to hold someone accountable...


I agree...hypothetically...what if the guy slammed on the brakes with plenty of distance between his car and the pedestrians, but his brake pads were faulty, so the manufacturer was negligent.  If the government has no regulation over the quality of automobile parts -- as the Randroids would have it -- then the justice system cannot demand redress from the manufacturer.  The Randroids will say it is in the company's self-interest to manufacture functional brake pads, otherwise consumers won't give the company their business; however, should it cost human life and limb for businesses to do the right thing?
???

Did we just go chicken-egg?


Neither.  The rooster came first. Gnyuk gnyuk gnyuk!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_rabbit.gif

I agree...hypothetically...what if the guy slammed on the brakes with plenty of distance between his car and the pedestrians, but his brake pads were faulty, so the manufacturer was negligent.  If the government has no regulation over the quality of automobile parts -- as the Randroids would have it -- then the justice system cannot demand redress from the manufacturer.  The Randroids will say it is in the company's self-interest to manufacture functional brake pads, otherwise consumers won't give the company their business; however, should it cost human life and limb for businesses to do the right thing?
???
ever see fight club? only makes sense to make working brake pads if the legal settlements are more than the overhead involved with manufacturing quality brake pads. otherwise you just, as a car company, make commercials that make people think, erroneously, that your cars are safe. a certain number of people will die needlessly, but it would be incumbent on you to turn off your compassion and emotion and look solely at what maximizes profits.

i kinda think we'd all be living in a much better world if ayn rand had decided to become a stripper.  ;D

i actually think compassion and emotion, not "logic" -- which i think when you're using the word logic what you actually mean is strict utilitarianism; logic is sorta different and abstract, applying formal rules to axioms to derive conclusions, etc., it tends to have little to say about concrete life situations -- but i'm always seeing animals setting aside emotion and compassion in favor of self-interest. it's called predatory behavior, and the state of nature is basically made of it. that's what i've always seen objectivism and libertarianism ultimately leading to, a kind of anti-civilization. civilization has always been about pooling our resources because we're stronger as tribes, nations and as a species when we work together than when everyone's running around doing what's best for them as individuals.


Rand herself would have likely created a society like that if she was given full reign over a country.

As I said earlier, I don't agree with her economic views because she seemed somewhat traumatized by her early experiences with the Soviet Union.  As a result, I believe her logic was compromised on economic matters by her apparent absolute faith in markets.

I actually lean socialist on some issues (like medicine), so I would agree with you that pooling resources makes the most sense.  For the most part, I actually believe that a true manifestation of proper (rational self-interested) Objectivism is actually Norway.

Norway simultaneously has competitive markets in addition to comprehensive social programs.  This way, all of society benefits while still being able to excel in personal business matters.

As I see it, the difference between self-interest and selfish is subtle, but pretty big. Selfish would be running a red light because you don't want to stop, or are late for work, etc. Self-interest would mean stopping for it, not because it's the law, but because running it may result in an accident in which you are hurt. Broken neck > being 3 minutes late for work.

Both mindsets are selfish: the difference is that one is putting others at risk from your actions, the other is to keep you from risk, while simutaneously not being a risk to others as a side-benefit.

I prefer to not run red lights and such because I rather dislike the idea of becoming road pizza via tractor-trailer. or getting a ticket. or higher insurance rates. or running over kids. or going to jail. or getting sued.

Maybe we're defining terms here differently, because I equate self interest with self preservation.

"avoiding accidents often means driving defensively, letting people get away with things you rationally shouldn't let them get away with, yielding even when you have right of way, etc. this is the opposite of self-interest/selfishness.

Being rational and being right aren't the same thing. For example: a semi might cuts you off (happened to me yesterday). Being "right" means staying in your lane: being rational means gtfo out his way. Being alive is more important that being right (or rational).

Having a "rational self-interest" (I didn't bring up the term) would not eliminate all car accidents. The semi driver that swerved into my lane didn't do it out of malice or bad intent - it was probably just a momentary lapse in his concentration. It happens to all of us.

Btw, I've never read any of Rand's books.

Ant

ever see fight club? only makes sense to make working brake pads if the legal settlements are more than the overhead involved with manufacturing quality brake pads. otherwise you just, as a car company, make commercials that make people think, erroneously, that your cars are safe. a certain number of people will die needlessly, but it would be incumbent on you to turn off your compassion and emotion and look solely at what maximizes profits.


Legal settlements only apply if society gives the government the power to regulate commerce.  The Republicans have spent the past 30 years telling us less regulation is always better.

Rational self-interest is a cognitive process where you weigh your options in a given situation with the long term in mind.  It's not as involved as it sounds if you're used to doing it a lot.  After a while, it becomes a reflex.

Letting people get away with being crazy drivers makes sense from the viewpoint of a typical motorist, because if you drive slowly and keep your distance from other drivers, you're less likely to get hit.  When in heavy traffic, you have less choices, but if you assume that everyone around you is somewhat unobservant of traffic laws and is only moderately proficient at driving, you will drive in more careful ways.


And to amplify this point...

Rational self interest, from the driver's point of view of having hit someone:

You've inflicted force upon an unwilling person.  Whether through malice or negligence doesn't matter; you're obliged to pay for the damage you've done.  You can't necessarily resurrect the kid you flattened, but you can stop the car, dial 911, render medical aid, and report the incident to the authorities when they arrive. 

How you make restitution is up to the courts; the difference between a Randroid (or a Libertarian) and an Anarchist is that the former are willing to cede the monopoly on violence to the State.  (Anarchists aren't; they reject the State entirely.) 

The form of that restitution, as imposed by the court, could be anything from estimating the future earnings of the person you ran over and garnishing your wages accordingly, to fines plus jail time, and (depending on whether you're willing to give the State the power of life and death) the death penalty.  In a nation of laws, the form of restitutioin is codified in law, and it's up to lawyers to haggle over the details of which laws apply - that is, whether or not it was "an accident" (brakes failed, and it's a matter of contract law to figure out if an insurance policy pays out), "negligence" (driver wasn't paying attention), "reckless endangerment" (...while getting a BJ at 90 miles an hour...), or some form of homicide (...guy stated an intention of running someone down).

In all cases, it's within the driver's rational self-interest to pull over and render aid, even in the complete absence of witnesses.  A nation of laws becomes an anarchy if the laws are not obeyed, and if "back up and finish the job" were to be perceived as a legitimate option, he might just as easily become the next victim. 

By that same token, it's within the rational self-interest of the armed bystander to draw on the driver, but not to fire if the driver pulls over.  The State has a monopoly on violence, the bystander is also a civilian, and no court has authorized any violence on behalf of the State.  The only force the armed bystander can naturally (i.e. by virtue of "natural law", namely rational self interest) exercise is the minimum amount of force necessary to prevent the driver from continuing to inflict force upon the victim being dragged beneath the car.

Ethics is nasty complicated stuff.  Did I tell ya about the time a train was running down a track towards a kid with a broken leg?  And there was another kid with a broken leg on the other line, and I couldn't make up my mind whether or not to throw the switch?  The very next week, the runaway train was aimed at a school bus stalled on the tracks, and I flipped the switch to squash another single kid with a broken leg instead.  Good thing I don't have kids, because the next week, I saw some poor bastard in the same situation having to choose whether to flip the switch to squash a stalled schoolbus full of strangers' kids to save his own kid.

In all cases, it's within the driver's rational self-interest to pull over and render aid, even in the complete absence of witnesses.  A nation of laws becomes an anarchy if the laws are not obeyed, and if "back up and finish the job" were to be perceived as a legitimate option, he might just as easily become the next victim. 



Absolutely not.  What if the driver was an escaped Death Row convict, whose last appeal to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) was just denied and he's scheduled to get fried tomorrow at sunrise?

He would be VASTLY better off to go on the run.

Now I realize that this is an extreme example, but if we are strictly looking at INDIVIDUAL interests, the computation of "what os the right thing to do" varies based on the various situational data.

By that same token, it's within the rational self-interest of the armed bystander to draw on the driver, but not to fire if the driver pulls over.  The State has a monopoly on violence, the bystander is also a civilian, and no court has authorized any violence on behalf of the State.  The only force the armed bystander can naturally (i.e. by virtue of "natural law", namely rational self interest) exercise is the minimum amount of force necessary to prevent the driver from continuing to inflict force upon the victim being dragged beneath the car.

Ethics is nasty complicated stuff.  Did I tell ya about the time a train was running down a track towards a kid with a broken leg?  And there was another kid with a broken leg on the other line, and I couldn't make up my mind whether or not to throw the switch?  The very next week, the runaway train was aimed at a school bus stalled on the tracks, and I flipped the switch to squash another single kid with a broken leg instead.  Good thing I don't have kids, because the next week, I saw some poor bastard in the same situation having to choose whether to flip the switch to squash a stalled schoolbus full of strangers' kids to save his own kid.


While I agree with the rest of your post, I would argue that the case with Knepp was actually one where pulling the gun on the driver worked, but the odds were against him.  It was a risky manuever and letting the guy do a hit and run would have probably served the situation better than stopping him.  So, I actually agree with Tia on this now.  The more I think about it, the more I realize that simply reporting the incident makes the most sense and creates the least risk for yourself.

In the second example with the train tracks, not flipping the switch and letting the situation proceed without your influence is the most legally sound option, because, that way, the courts can't possibly connect you to the occurrence and render any punishment.

Did I tell ya about the time a train was running down a track towards a kid with a broken leg?  And there was another kid with a broken leg on the other line, and I couldn't make up my mind whether or not to throw the switch?  The very next week, the runaway train was aimed at a school bus stalled on the tracks, and I flipped the switch to squash another single kid with a broken leg instead.  Good thing I don't have kids, because the next week, I saw some poor bastard in the same situation having to choose whether to flip the switch to squash a stalled schoolbus full of strangers' kids to save his own kid.


Intriguing hypothetical ethics dilemma, but in the real world of today tampering with rail switchgear probably makes one a terrorist.  ;)

Murphy's Law: Any railroad switch you have to throw will be locked or rusted in place.

Chaos Theory, as applicable to railway switches: oops.

Ant

Absolutely not.  What if the driver was an escaped Death Row convict, whose last appeal to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) was just denied and he's scheduled to get fried tomorrow at sunrise?

He would be VASTLY better off to go on the run.


Heluva hypothetical you got there, LB!
:D

Heluva hypothetical you got there, LB!
:D


Granted this is an EXTREME case.  But since it would appear to e valid, the question then exists "where is the inflection point" which causes a perp to run instead of stay?  There was a prior post that says it is always in the best interest of the perp to stick around, but however distastful this will sound, in some cases the perp is better off making a run for it.

(In the secular world, that is.  From a moral standpoint he's gonna burn in hell riding a Chrysler Cordoba, of course)