Are you nuts?

imported post

Here in Virginia, there are two ways you can be declared legally insane for the purpose of a NGBRI plea. First, if you did not know what you were doing, as for example a guy carves up his boss but does it because he thought he as carving a turkey (a Thanksgiing turkey; I know a lot of us have idiot bosses but "turkey" in the street sense won't fly and I know, more's the pity)

The other definition of legal insanity is the inability to distinguish right from wrong. I just heard a song from the turbulent late 60s that had the lyric:

"I'm not talking 'bout 'Party ideology'; I'm talking 'bout RIGHT AND WRONG! Do you know the difference?"

A few years ago I posed the question to a bunch of people I knew: (A) do you know the difference between right and wrong? (YES) (B) Okay. Then define it.

Since you have to be sane to own a firearm in this country, I hope everybody here can answer Part A. But canyou answer Part B (in 25 words or less)?

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Here in Virginia, there are two ways you can be declared legally insane for the purpose of a NGBRI plea. First, if you did not know what you were doing, as for example a guy carves up his boss but does it because he thought he as carving a turkey (a Thanksgiing turkey; I know a lot of us have idiot bosses but "turkey" in the street sense won't fly and I know, more's the pity)

The other definition of legal insanity is the inability to distinguish right from wrong. I just heard a song from the turbulent late 60s that had the lyric:

"I'm not talking 'bout 'Party ideology'; I'm talking 'bout RIGHT AND WRONG! Do you know the difference?"

A few years ago I posed the question to a bunch of people I knew: (A) do you know the difference between right and wrong? (YES) (B) Okay. Then define it.

Since you have to be sane to own a firearm in this country, I hope everybody here can answer Part A. But canyou answer Part B (in 25 words or less)?

Click to expand...

I think a lot of us can define it better than the statists and tyrants who would apply it to us.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

SNIP Afew years ago I posed the question to a bunch of people I knew: (A) do you know the difference between right and wrong? (YES) (B) Okay. Then define it.

Since you have to be sane to own a firearm in this country, I hope everybody here can answer Part A. But canyou answer Part B (in 25 words or less)?

Click to expand...

Right: Those actions which result innet improved circumstances or conditions without unnecessary destruction.

imported post

I as a gun owner I may some day be asked such a question in a legal situation .

My answer will be " This is my attorney's phone number . "

____________________________________________________________________

For this forum my answer beyond the slime gene pool reflex is ...

" That's what it takes to be a hero , a little gem of innocence inside you that makes you want to believe that there still exists a right and wrong , that decency will somehow triumph in the end . "

imported post

:uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::uhoh: I often use Ann Romney's blueberry pancakes to help describe my thoughts on the 2nd amendment and my right to keep and bear arms . This topic of right and wrong reminded me of a virtuous woman raising five boys swimming in a filthy socialocean that produced the Son of Sam . The Son of Sam believed only in the slime pool type evolutionary no god ethics where right and wrong have no meaning at all .

RELENTLESS LOGICis now needed to safe guard our RKBA from all levels of attack .

My attoney's name is George .

imported post

R a Z o R wrote:

OT

Click to expand...

Overtime?

imported post

Who isn't nuts?? lol I know the difference between right and wrong. But my right from wrong is probobly different than many others! I mean should Iplead criminal insanity if I get cought underage drinking? The social norm is that underage drinking is bad. But then again I-D-G-A-F what the social norm is!



Ben

imported post

Since I started this, allow me to provide the best answer to part "B" that I have ever recieved. I asked this question of a waitress in a redneck dive in Arlington ten years ago. Her response was: "I know the difference"; and when I asked her to elasborate she repeated:"I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE". And the look in her eyes said: "and so do you".

And indeed I do, but to express and/or quantify it is a daunting task. I feel it fortunate that my religous beliefs constrin me only in therealm of my personl behaviour and not, say, how much greenhouse ga I give off farting after a vegetarian meal.

And if anyone cares to know how I would define the difference between right and wrong (in 25 words or less) here it is:

:THE WRONG SHALL FAIL. THE RIGHT SHALL PREVAIL."

That is really all there is to it.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

:THE WRONG SHALL FAIL. THE RIGHT SHALL PREVAIL."

Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. On more than one level.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

SNIP Afew years ago I posed the question to a bunch of people I knew: (A) do you know the difference between right and wrong? (YES) (B) Okay. Then define it.

Since you have to be sane to own a firearm in this country, I hope everybody here can answer Part A. But canyou answer Part B (in 25 words or less)?

Click to expand...

Right: Those actions which result innet improved circumstances or conditions without unnecessary destruction.

Click to expand...

Oh boy... all the fun that can be had with this one...



http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

Another problem for utilitarianism is that it seems to overlook justice and rights. One common illustration is called Transplant. Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save their lives, while killing the "donor". There is no other way to save any of the other five patients (Foot 1966, Thomson 1976; compare related cases in Carritt 1947 and McCloskey 1965).

We need to add that the organ recipients will emerge healthy, the source of the organs will remain secret, the doctor won't be caught or punished for cutting up the "donor", and the doctor knows all of this to a high degree of probability (despite the fact that many others will help in the operation). Still, with the right details filled in, it looks as if cutting up the "donor" will maximize utility, since five lives have more utility than one life. If so, then classical utilitarianism implies that it would not be morally wrong for the doctor to perform the transplant and even that it would be morally wrong for the doctor not to perform the transplant. Most people find this result abominable. They take this example to show how bad it can be when utilitarians overlook individual rights, such as the unwilling donor's right to life.

Click to expand...

Alex is overlooking the point of the law. The point is not about WHAT your definition of right and wrong is, but rather, WHETHER you're able to logically distinguish them. Essentially, the law is trying to separate psychotic people from normal people. Both A and B demonstrate whether someone is in-touch with reality or not, and that is their only purpose. What someone actually defines as right and wrong is irrelevant, that's for the law to decide.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

SNIP Afew years ago I posed the question to a bunch of people I knew: (A) do you know the difference between right and wrong? (YES) (B) Okay. Then define it.

Since you have to be sane to own a firearm in this country, I hope everybody here can answer Part A. But canyou answer Part B (in 25 words or less)?

Click to expand...

Right: Those actions which result innet improved circumstances or conditions without unnecessary destruction.

Click to expand...

Oh boy... all the fun that can be had with this one...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

Another problem for utilitarianism is that it seems to overlook justice and rights. One common illustration is called Transplant. Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save their lives, while killing the "donor". There is no other way to save any of the other five patients (Foot 1966, Thomson 1976; compare related cases in Carritt 1947 and McCloskey 1965).

We need to add that the organ recipients will emerge healthy, the source of the organs will remain secret, the doctor won't be caught or punished for cutting up the "donor", and the doctor knows all of this to a high degree of probability (despite the fact that many others will help in the operation). Still, with the right details filled in, it looks as if cutting up the "donor" will maximize utility, since five lives have more utility than one life. If so, then classical utilitarianism implies that it would not be morally wrong for the doctor to perform the transplant and even that it would be morally wrong for the doctor not to perform the transplant. Most people find this result abominable. They take this example to show how bad it can be when utilitarians overlook individual rights, such as the unwilling donor's right to life.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. Could you be explicit, please.

imported post

The question is NOT about any specific situation hypothetical or even real. The question is: DEFINE (IF YOU ARE ABLE IN 25 WORDS OR LESS) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. Wheyher or not to sacrifice one life of unknown secular merit to preserve the lives of others whose lives are of likewise unknown secular merit is something we could all write about until there was no more room on the Internet for pornography, at which point everyone would be wanting to know who I am and where I live so they could kill me for spoling the buzz.

Address the question please in 25 words or less, just kike you were sending in boxtops for a cereal essay contest ti win a cowboy hat.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

The question is NOT about any specific situation hypothetical or even real. The question is: DEFINE (IF YOU ARE ABLE IN 25 WORDS OR LESS) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. Wheyher or not to sacrifice one life of unknown secular merit to preserve the lives of others whose lives are of likewise unknown secular merit is something we could all write about until there was no more room on the Internet for pornography, at which point everyone would be wanting to know who I am and where I live so they could kill me for spoling the buzz.

Address the question please in 25 words or less, just kike you were sending in boxtops for a cereal essay contest ti win a cowboy hat.

Click to expand...

I think he was more criticizing mine than avoiding yours.

I any event, now that I see yours, too,I think I get his drift.

The problem lies not with the answer I gave, but with the ability of the reader to postulate benefits and harms. This would be true not only for the exampleStylez gave, but very broadly, too.

There is no reason justice and rights cannot be considered when examining to determine whether a net benefit or even the greatest good.

The example he cited is rather short-sighted as applied here because it assumes no one will consider whether it is a net improved circumstance if the rights of the donor are violated. The trouble arises not from the example, but from the people who postulated the example or the person who postulated its application here. Its an entirely legitimate concern--that some people will fail to consider the bigger picture. But it is easily solved by pointing out to the decider that he needs to look more broadly.

It doesn't take a whizz-brain to figure out that the example of the involuntary organ donor would be a net deterioration and not a benefit.

Philosphers have beendoing little else besidestrying to broaden the scope ofconsideration for the rest of usto use in our decision-making for the last 50K years.

The whole question of net benefit or greatest good is limited only by the ability of the person tothink upand/or estimate potential benefits and harms.

imported post

Right or wrong cannot be defined as a general statute but only either as a personal one or societial one according to the society being applied. We each have our personal fellings about it but those cannot be applied to our neighbor therefore any definition is invalid for anyone other than the one quoting the definition.

Ther is an extremely good article on msnbc.com today about psychopaths. I do not necessarily agree with all of their thoughts but it is thought provoking and somewhat chilling in their findings. For instance they estimate that as many as 1% of the population are unable to feel remorse orguilt for causing anyone pain or injury. In other words they have no conscience. They focus on the Columbine killers but my question is if they had no conscience why did they kill themselves afterwards? Very good reading whether you agree with any of it or not. You may thinks it is all BS and that is OK but does bring up some interesting thoughts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30267075/

imported post

The best definition of a sociopath I ever heard is that a sociopath sees everything you see the ame as you see it. except that the sociopath sees his name on all of it. LAPD Det. Joseph Wambaugh once said the pop tune that really disgusted him was Sammy Davis's "I Did It My Way". He said that it was the "Socioppath's Nationaal Anthem". I really cannot argue otherwise.....

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Not sure what you mean. Could you be explicit, please.

Click to expand...

Your definition is too vague, but basically boils down to a utilitarian outlook on morals. I posted one of the problem cases with that belief set, which happens to be something I know you'd have a problem with. So, in short, don't paint with such a broad brush.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

It doesn't take a whizz-brain to figure out that the example of the involuntary organ donor would be a net deterioration and not a benefit.

Click to expand...

Can you explain?

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Alex is overlooking the point of the law. The point is not about WHAT your definition of right and wrong is, but rather, WHETHER you're able to logically distinguish them. Essentially, the law is trying to separate psychotic people from normal people. Both A and B demonstrate whether someone is in-touch with reality or not, and that is their only purpose. What someone actually defines as right and wrong is irrelevant, that's for the law to decide.

Click to expand...

In a simplistic manner right or wrong can be defined as what the law says and that would be the determination in court. Can a person understand what the law is and obey it. The hospital case is a good one as in our society we cannot sacrifice one person under these circumstances even to benefit five others. However is some societies it may be a pefectly accepted practice especially if it was a male/female decision. For instaqnce five males to benefit from the sacrifice of one female.We could look at it like this in our society:

A sane person would know thatit is illegal to sacrifice the healthy person for the benefit of the others even they felt that it would be the right thing to do.

The insane person would not only feel that it is right to sacrifice the healthy person to benefit the others but would in fact try to do the transplant themselves whether or not they were able to do it.

The sociopath would consider each person and make the decision based on whether or not one of the persons involved was a friend/loved one of theirs. If they did not personally benefit from it they would not care.

The phychopath would say let the sick people die and while we are at it let's just put the healthy one out of his misery also and see what it is like to kill someone.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Alex is overlooking the point of the law. The point is not about WHAT your definition of right and wrong is, but rather, WHETHER you're able to logically distinguish them. Essentially, the law is trying to separate psychotic people from normal people. Both A and B demonstrate whether someone is in-touch with reality or not, and that is their only purpose. What someone actually defines as right and wrong is irrelevant, that's for the law to decide.

Click to expand...

In a simplistic manner right or wrong can be defined as what the law says and that would be the determination in court. Can a person understand what the law is and obey it. The hospital case is a good one as in our society we cannot sacrifice one person under these circumstances even to benefit five others. However is some societies it may be a pefectly accepted practice especially if it was a male/female decision. For instaqnce five males to benefit from the sacrifice of one female.We could look at it like this in our society:

A sane person would know thatit is illegal to sacrifice the healthy person for the benefit of the others even they felt that it would be the right thing to do.

The insane person would not only feel that it is right to sacrifice the healthy person to benefit the others but would in fact try to do the transplant themselves whether or not they were able to do it.

The sociopath would consider each person and make the decision based on whether or not one of the persons involved was a friend/loved one of theirs. If they did not personally benefit from it they would not care.

The phychopath would say let the sick people die and while we are at it let's just put the healthy one out of his misery also and see what it is like to kill someone.

Click to expand...

Exactly, because it goes right back to the intended purpose of those questions, rather than how they are being presented now.



AWDstylez:

The point is not about WHAT your definition of right and wrong is, but rather, WHETHER you're able to logically distinguish them.

Click to expand...

As for the OP, no one is going to be able to define universal right and wrong in 25 words. Philosophy has been around as long as mankind himself and no one has come to a solid conclusion yet, much less narrowed it to a 25 word discription.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Not sure what you mean. Could you be explicit, please.

Click to expand...

Your definition is too vague, but basically boils down to a utilitarian outlook on morals. I posted one of the problem cases with that belief set, which happens to be something I know you'd have a problem with. So, in short, don't paint with such a broad brush.

Click to expand...

Let me address both of your successive posts in one.

I disagree that it boils down to a utilitarian outlook. Utilitarian outlook can only be asserted by one who refuses to look beyond the bare utility.It is not the proposed principle that comes up short, it is the ability of the individual applying it that defines its scope.

Just for illustration,if one has no concept of property rights, say a petty thief, he will come up with the answer that it is a net benefit to steal. Whereas someone like St. George Tucker will come up with the answer that not only is it not OK to steal, but property rights deserve extensive protections at law, not just against petty thievery, but against excessive tariffs andtaxes, etc. right on down to laws of inheritance.

As to theharm regarding the organ donor andrights, it takesvery little additional thought to realize thehugePandora'sbox involved in legitimizing such a practice. Just off the top of my head, once it became known as a practice, very few people would seek medical care. What a way to shorten the average life span, eh?

Nevermind the huge potential problems of regarding people as "spare parts". Dehumanizing. We already knowthe tremendous disrespect for people when they are viewed as "different", a few steps further down the slope we have apseudo-science saying people are basically animals. Where has that gotten us? Electro-shocking brains, life-times on psycho-pharmacologic drugs, etc.

I'llstop here.

Just because it looks like utilitarianism does not mean it is. The principle is not so much vague as it is very broad. As it would have to be if it were to be useful for application to the myriad situations possible in life.

Just thinkit over. I think that after some examination you will agree that it is not the principlethat would have a shortcoming, but theability of the individual trying toapply it--his ability to think up possible benefits and harms for any given scenario, and his ability to correctly estimate their likelihood.

Or, perhaps better yet, make up a few scenarios of your own and see how applyingthe principle plays out.Don't take my word for it.Give it a try on a few hypothetical situations.