Moral 3 - the debate rages on.

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
I broached the dreaded FNG, Gabe - not anyone else. Moi.

That's because while I disagree with Armstrong on particulars of his analysis - one should challenge one's world view every once in awhile. You should test your assumptions. The argument is a good one for the overly reckless, IMHO. Certainly, we see them in firearms debates. Some trainer friends of mine throw them out of a class or two when they find folks who just want to fight.

Is the subtlety in this debate, whether your action will have the intended impact with some reasonable probability? And are you willing to accept your own loss to accomplish this goal.

If not, is your probable loss worth it?

That might be too cognitive for some.

In Gabe's scenario, the husband probably
could have gained time or dealt with the assailant. He was not acting well.
Neither did the police who seemed to have overwhelming force. Were they disciplined?

As far as the psychological stuff - I've actually asked folk who know if losing you and stopping the attack is better for the victim then being assaulted and having you for support later.

In cases of rape and torture, sacrifice yourself. It's a better outcome for your loved ones. So thinks a PTSD expert.
Kind of a coldblooded decision but since the other was position has been expoused (better to be a good witness and supportive), I go ask. Note, that this has never been researched so it is just opinion from someone who treats a lot of such trauma and knows the literature extremely well.

The argument hinges on whether your action can stop the assault - that's where I disagree with some of the FNG scenarios. A good response stands the chance of disrupting
the attack. Of course, you versus the Red Army - is a loser but with most reasonable scenarios with training and ferocity you have a chance to disrupt. Of course, you might die.

The pure FNG, you have no chance and you just die for nothing. If that truly is the case, then you should make the rational response and tough it out and deal with the psychological consequences to yourself of not being manly later. But when is it truly the case?

Was the NYC case, one of these - probably not? Or was it?

I don't know if I am saying this well but isn't it about the BPO (Best probable outcome)?

Is a -5 better than a -10?

Back to specifics:

1. Fight for the family for even the smallest probability of success.
2. NYC - have I said this elsewhere - in this specific instance, I would have use the trick from my kid days in Brooklyn - I would have found an officer and told them that a cop was in trouble at the place of the incident.
I would lie. That's if it's me by my lonesome. With a team of folks, then LawDog's suggestion sounds good.

Sorry to start a subthread that drives good men mad :)
 
Glenn,

Remind me to call you if stuff like that goes down in Brackenridge park...I wanna see you calling the SAPD with that Brooklyn accent :D

------------------
Mike
mnealtx@yahoo.com
 
Never go there! Or we by accident on a weekend tried to take a shortcut on cruising night. That was mistake.

Too bad, I can't type in an accent, I would try to give you my spiel to the SAPD.

Ha ;)
 
Here's a little ink in muddy water:
How likely would it be that someone who went into the crowd and shot/stabbed/ assaulted the perpetrators would be convicted of a crime? Bernie had his day in court a while ago. I doubt many people other than Billy Joel fans remember who Bernard Getz was.
I have joked but I could never NOT go into the crowd. I'd probably get my keister mangled but I don't think I could face myself otherwise. It's not a matter of being macho or getting your licks in but a matter of right and wrong. It is a sad testimony that a mob of angry concerned citizens didn't crash into the first mob and beat IT to a pulp.

------------------
Those who use arms well cultivate the Way and keep the rules.Thus they can govern in such a way as to prevail over the corrupt- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
 
I submit that the Noble Gesture would not be futile if the upright citizens in the crowd weren't all waiting for someone else to Do Something.

There was a mob, sure. Bad Guys, plenty. But the BGs were outnumbered by the quasi-good people who stood around and did nothing. Probably all of them were patting themselves on the back for their cogitative analysis of the situation: "It would just be a Futile Noble Gesture for me to jump in."

Pusillanimous poppycock.

pax

"All it takes for Evil to prevail in this world is for enough good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
 
Uhh...Hmmmm

Near as I can figure from trying to follow this thread in all its incarnations, the convoluted argument offered by "Glenn E. Meyer," when boiled down, amounts to little more than some sort of pseudo-intellectual "Save your own ass and watch your loved one be assaulted cause you'll be more valuable to him/her as support later than you will be getting killed trying to stop such a thing from happening."

No offense, sir, but you sound like some ivory tower academics I know who like to ridicule honorable behavior as misguided "manliness" or "macho." Sometimes there's just such a thing as doing what's right. If you're truly physically incapacitated, thought, that's another story and the question is moot.

But I would much rather my loved one, were I in that situation and died, be able to get over the grief and remember me fondly, and understand how there's more to life than biologically continuing one's existence, than for him/her and me to spend the rest of our lives racked by shame and guilt over valuing my own @ss over theirs, or wondering what might have been done differently, or if there might not have been a different outcome if something had been done differently.

Where I come from, here in the south, a truly noble gesture ain't never futile. It just sometimes costs a lot.

More shame in inaction, however rational or reasonable given the circumstances, than in losing.



[This message has been edited by Franklin W. Dixon (edited July 13, 2000).]
 
Read better, Frank.

I clearly stated that I posted the concept for debate and pushed the analysis to test the strengths of some folk's position after seeing the rhetoric about Central Park.

I also said that in the discussions of the issue - I wasn't pushing the position in the same manner as Armstrong.

Quote:

Oops, complicated issue. Just one thing, I usually present the FNG for argument's sake
as being an old fart academic, I think you should think out all positions.

When I argue with Armstrong, I take the position of Gabe Suarez and do what I need to do, even if I come to ill.

End Quote:

Read the other posts from me also on my position on what I would do with the FNG situation.

I did not ridicule honorable behavior and you ,sir, owe me an apology.

And yes, I am an academic who got there from two parents who didn't graduate high school and from at least two grandparents who were illegal immigrants. How about you?

Since I am a little annoyed. The reason we are not just animals is that we have cognitive abilities. Be honorably and stupidly dead without helping a situation for all I care. The point is to think.

Just read your edit - did you read my post where I in fact said that said that a family might be better off knowing that you sacrificed yourself for them according to my expert friend? Miss it?

As far as the bit about the South, give it a rest. The South can be just as crappy as anywhere. I don't remember crowds rising up in righteous wrath to prevent the harassment of black children trying to go to school back during desegregation arguments.

Research demonstrates that a lot of pontificating morality can go right out the window due to situational and social contextual variance. That sound Ivory Tower enough.

<RANT>

[This message has been edited by Glenn E. Meyer (edited July 13, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
Be honorably and stupidly dead without helping a situation for all I care. The point is to think.
<RANT>
[/quote]
I guess I would think of it as an example of good behavior even if one died without "saving" the victum(s). A role model in other words.

Robert Heinlein said somthing to the effect that fighting/dieing for your family or clan was the first level of morality. Fighting/dieing for your country was the second level. Fighting/dieing for your species was the highest level.

It should be noted though, that Heinlein was profoundly affected by Darwin's books at an early age...according to Heinlein himself.
 
Good Evening Everyone-

It's not too often that you see a thread stretch to Part III, Part IV, etc! :)

LawDog, in your post from July 13, 2000 at 02:51 AM, you state:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Now, let's pretend it's not a stranger being assualted. It's your wife and/or daughter being sexually assaulted. The ones you'd fight to protect. And you aren't there.

Let's say you're busy at work. And your most precious thing in the world is in the centre of that mess.

Would you still suggest that I call 911, be a good witness, prepare for a detailed police report--basically observe as the rape continues?

Let's be truthful now.[/quote]

The academic mistake here is that we're now going under the assumption that it's no longer a stranger on the street! By definition of what you're saying, you now know that it is a loved one of Blue Jays...

If I found myself in NYC for some reason and came upon a melee, and exclaimed, Oh my God, that is LawDog's mother in there! Of course I would help. The fact-of-the-matter is that I wouldn't need to "weigh" the decision. I would be compelled to assist friends, family, and loved ones. This would all be on auto-pilot.

The same goes for you. If you're not on police business, but rather, a tourist in NYC, I hope your "response time" is different when compared between friends, family, and loved ones (i.e., Oh my God, that is Blue Jays' mother in there! and someone with whom you're not familiar.

And of course, I'm ALWAYS truthful here...

Pax, in your post from July 13, 2000 5:32 PM you state:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>There was a mob, sure. Bad Guys, plenty. But the BGs were outnumbered by the quasi-good people who stood around and did nothing. Probably all of them were patting themselves on the back for their cogitative analysis of the situation: "It would just be a Futile Noble Gesture for me to jump in."[/quote]

This is exactly the turmoil with which we're wrestling here! Trust me, we're on the same sheet of music with each other.

The question becomes, "How do I effect the greatest amount of positive action, stop the assault, and bring the most justice while minimizing injury, pain, and possibly death to the greatest number of innocents?"

It seems to me very hard-to-believe that someone would respond with the same speed, strength, and righteous fury for an unknown innocent as compared to seeing their mother surrounded by the goons. Do we need to beat this dead horse any longer?

Needless to say, the "passion in your fight" as you move to rescue your mother would likely be contagious as you rush to her aid.

Running into a violent mob to attempt to rescue a complete stranger just ain't going to be as passionate a fight.

Thanks everyone. Hope to discuss this some more soon.

Regards to all,

~ Blue Jays ~
 
Glamdring - you have made a utility argument but it spreads the perceived benefit outside of your immediate to be protected group to a perceived larger genetic group. We fight for our genes.

It is one of the sociobiological analyses of altruism. Why should one sacrifice oneself?

While you can say honor - that is non-explanatory as one wants a reason that the concept is operational in us.

Even though you do not help your loved ones, you raise the possibility of action in such assaults. You hope that BGs in other assaults will decide that your unsuccessful attempt does demonstrate a risk to them and they do not attempt attacks on others in the extended group that you want to protect.

Heinlein's clan stuff is pure sociobiology.

Heinlein also wrote about his hero, sisters and his momma in a way that is very strange. I take his philosophical view points with a grain of salt.

I am academic enough for everybody?
 
Havent read all the previous ones but would disagree with spectre about displaying lethal weapons. I think it has the same effect that aircraft carriers have on an area
"the projection of power."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
Never go there! Or we by accident on a weekend tried to take a shortcut on cruising night. That was mistake.

Too bad, I can't type in an accent, I would try to give you my spiel to the SAPD.

Ha ;)[/quote]

I HEAR YA!!!! Got caught there one Saturday afternoon trying to take a shortcut ('bout 12 years ago :) )all I could think about was "I've got NO way out of here if something goes wrong"...wasnt a comfortable feeling...


------------------
Mike
mnealtx@yahoo.com
 
I believe this is just of a reflection of our country now. Im getting tired of defending the rights of people that don't give a damn about them or this country. Am getting more bitter every year, and am reaching the point of indifference as I see most of the "victims" as the very people causing us to have this argument in the first place. I don't mean this to sound as a blanket statement against all as it will, but I believe most of these people would vote to have us disarmed if they could. Maybe this will awaken them to reality. These liberals neeed to be mugged by reality sometimes.

I see a lot of "if this were your family"? Well it wasn't because they would have the common since not to go to this idiotic event. Plus my atlanta braves hat wouldnt go over too well. :) And if it were my family I hope I would have a 7.62 with plenty of pre ban mags at disposal to ventilate the crowd with.

After having read the previous post would have to go along the lines of X,EAF,BLUJ,DONNY.

Glam I do like the car (4x4 truck) defence.Maybe the best Idea of all.

It seems there is a lot of absolutism here.
LawDog, Munro have either of you seen Gallipoli? Is there ever odds bad enough that you wouldn't charge head first into battle?
Would you take on the looters in the LA/Watts riots single handedly?
Theres bravery, and theres ?


[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited July 14, 2000).]
 
Ledbetter, nice haiku! ;)

Should we also be considering whether our actions will trigger action on the part of others--Pax's bystanders, for instance? I was taught (but I've barely had any psychology, so this is probably way oversimplified) that research shows that the larger the crowd, the less likely anyone will take action as everyone waits for "someone" to "do something." In contrast, when two people are alone one almost always makes at least some effort to save the other because this effect disappears when you can look around and realize you're the only one there to act.

This was a hot topic when that woman was THROWN off a BRIDGE in Detroit in front of a huge crowd, by only TWO men. Those two were easy prey for such a mob, but no one made the first move.

What about this, Glenn? Does my futile gesture of charging in stand any chance of breaking the crowd's trance so that I can expect help to follow, or will they simply be relieved that someone finally "did something about that" and continue watching to see what I do?
 
Mr. Meyer:

I did not ridicule honorable behavior and you ,sir, owe me an apology.

No, sir, I do not. In the second thread on this topic you agreed with a post by "Blue Jay" which stated:

Do the right thing:

Assume a defensive position and unsnap the thumbreak on your holster. Be ready and able to move. Call 9-1-1 and shout for help.
Concentrate on being a good witness. Open your eyes and ears and remember everything possible. Give the best police report of your entire life.

Beyond that, you're setting yourself up for your own homicide. That's something we DON'T want to read about on TFL someday.

Specifically, Meyer, you said "Blue is right on the money."

If that ain't endorsing/supporting strict CYA in "certain cases," I don't know what is.

I am an academic who got there from two parents who didn't graduate high school and from at least two grandparents who were illegal immigrants. How about you?

None of your business, and what the heck does the immigrant status of your family have to do with ANYTHING in this argument? Talk about emotion overriding cognition.

Since I am a little annoyed. The reason we are not just animals is that we have cognitive abilities. Be honorably and stupidly dead without helping a situation for
all I care. The point is to think.

Another difference is the fact that, because of those cognitive abilities, humans can and do make judgements to act based on what is right and wrong, in spite of the risk...something animals may do in protecting their young, sometimes, but not nearly to the extent that humans do.

Just read your edit - did you read my post where I in fact said that said that a
family might be better off knowing that you sacrificed yourself for them according
to my expert friend? Miss it?

No, I didn't miss it. I know some academics have trouble making decisions unless there are a whole slew of "experts" to base their theories on, but here in the real world, we have to make decisions for ourselves and accept the consequences, regardless of what the "experts" say. A lot of experts floating around these days.

As far as the bit about the South, give it a rest. The South can be just as crappy
as anywhere. I don't remember crowds rising up in righteous wrath to prevent the harassment of black children trying to go to school back during desegregation arguments.

Nice oversimplification. Typical. Having lived here all my life, though, I know people who were involved in both sides of the issue, and everywhere in between. Better learn all you can about your subject before criticizing it (I learned that in graduate skyool).
 
I'll comment on one thing in your attempt to explain your first silly post.

You said my comment on the South was an oversimplification. Perchance do you remember that you made the blanket statement about the South?

Glad you are the all-knowning source of what is right or wrong in all moral situations.
I guess trying to understand what is behind the decision to act is not useful for you.

So Frank:
You are in NYC or a similar location.
If you were seeing a large mob attack a woman, you can have your gun or whatever. You are all alone - given us the Frank tactical plan.

Would you act differently if it was a stranger or a loved one?

Now it is not a woman but a group of men beating up another man.

That is the question for you. Remember not to use your cognitive abilities in the answer
and clearly explain any differences in behavior in the three situations.

Since you decide to criticize academics for thinking about things, why did you go to school?

It is also a cheap shot to attack the person, rather than discuss the issue. Give us your tactical wisdom.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
Glamdring - you have made a utility argument but it spreads the perceived benefit outside of your immediate to be protected group to a perceived larger genetic group. We fight for our genes.
It is one of the sociobiological analyses of altruism. Why should one sacrifice oneself?
While you can say honor - that is non-explanatory as one wants a reason that the concept is operational in us.
Even though you do not help your loved ones, you raise the possibility of action in such assaults. You hope that BGs in other assaults will decide that your unsuccessful attempt does demonstrate a risk to them and they do not attempt attacks on others in the extended group that you want to protect.

[/quote]

Well yes I tend towards utilitarian arguements. I think of it this way your either a part of society or your not. If your not then your a criminal [anarchist--ie self interest, or member of a small group gang, family, clan what have you] or a member of some other society [ie not US but Chinese or whatever]. If your not part of society then you don't care what impact your actions and beliefs have on society.

If you are part of society then you do care how your acts and beliefs impact your society. And you would act to preserve, strengthen, and build your society. At least if one is "rational" ["socialized" might be a better word].

I guess I think one is either "for", "against", or "indifferent" to society. If your not "for" a society why follow it's rules/laws/morality/etc?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:

You are in NYC or a similar location.
If you were seeing a large mob attack a woman, you can have your gun or whatever. You are all alone - given us the Frank tactical plan.
Would you act differently if it was a stranger or a loved one?
Now it is not a woman but a group of men beating up another man.
That is the question for you. Remember not to use your cognitive abilities in the answer
and clearly explain any differences in behavior in the three situations.
[/quote]
I know that I get just as upset or motivated by strangers being unjustly attacked as by family/friends being attacked. I HAVE intervened when strangers were being attacked when I was unarmed. Not against a mob though.
The only situations where I don't act directly [vs just calling police] is when I have children or such under my immediate protection [ie would have to abandon child or vulnerable adult with no one else to watch them]. I have been there also...and it is far harder to live with that [not acting directly and just calling Cops, because I had kids i was responsible for with no other adult at hand] than getting injured or killed. YMMV

As to tactics if you have a mob attacking an individual and you know the mob is not acting lawfully or morally [some places and times it is legal to kill, rape, beat people because of their skin color, religion, etc I think that is wrong]. But in that situation you have a great disparity of force which COULD [possibly] justify IMO the use of area effect weapons [molotov cocktails, IED's, etc] or using vehicals or whatever.

To quote Patton about tactics: "...use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum time." He also says that "Battles are won by frightening the enemy...fire from the rear is more deadly and three times more effective than fire from the front"


[This message has been edited by Glamdring (edited July 14, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top