Little Old Lady Rape Analogy – and questionnaire

[Ian]

There is a difference between an innocent old lady and Osama Bin Laden. Think about it. And the statement about you being a discrace to your country wasn't a joke, but slapping you in the face and challanging you to a duel? Come on. How is that not a joke?

[Darwinist]

No, but ethical people know that sometimes a man deserves someone to open up a can of whopass on him. A woman never deserves to be raped.

In other words, you feel the circumstances surrounding Osama offer sufficient reason to withhold assistance from him, if he was being beaten by someone. In other words, your view of ethics is just as circumstantial as mine - it's just that our exact reasons for doing this or that based on circumstances differs.

Welcome to the reality of circumstantial ethics, MO.

I personally agree that no woman deserves to be raped. However, there are individuals who disagree: most notably, and notoriously, the occasional judge who says, from the bench, that 'because of the way she was dressed' (or whatever reason) the woman was "asking for it."

I don't think any woman ever "asks" to be raped, even if she chooses to parade down the middle of the street buck-naked carrying a vibrator in one hand and a tube of K-Y Jelly in the other on her way to her lover's house. Do you think that woman is asking to be raped?

You see, MO, that's the difference between what a person really believes, and the presentation of a hypothetical example. I don't have to believe a hypothetical is the "right" thing, just because I bring it up as an example. And I did say, specifically, "for example" when I brought up filming the old lady's rape.

Understand?

[Darwinist]

There is a difference between an innocent old lady and Osama Bin Laden. Think about it.

What is the difference, precisely, please?

Are they not both human beings? Is there not more than one way to judge people?


And the statement about you being a discrace to your country wasn't a joke, but slapping you in the face and challanging you to a duel? Come on. How is that not a joke?

Rob and I have crossed swords at another forum - and not always in the friendliest of fashions. Since you have zero knowledge of our past dealings together, you, obviously, also have zero knowledge of Rob's full intent vis-a-vis his remark toward me.

Since he presented the statement in straightforward fashion - without amusing or ironic "smilies" of any kind, for example - I choose to interpret it in straightforward fashion: and the straightforward interpretation is that he meant exactly what he said.

Should HE post to the contrary, at that point I'll happily retract the remark I made. And not one moment sooner.


---Oh, and by the way - I don't appreciate being called a 'disgrace to my country' by a semi-literate knuckle-dragger who probably couldn't find his butt with both hands if it was on fire. So you can belay that jive pile of bull-feces ...unless you enjoy the idea of getting into a flaming contest which you'll lose.

[MO]

Understand?

No! I wouldn't see an ethical reason to get involved in a situation where two men were fighting. I would in all circumstances try to prevent or stop a rape in progress. It wouldn't matter what the woman was doing or what I thought of her.

[Darwinist]

No! I wouldn't see an ethical reason to get involved in a situation where two men were fighting.

Mm. Not even if it was a very large man beating on a very small man, eh? What about a very large adolescent beating the snot out of an adult woman? What about the same adolescent beating the hell out of an adult but undersized man?

...What if one man was raping another?

Or are you simply falling back on your femininity as an excuse to stay uninvolved? (Which is also a "circumstance," you realize, because if the "circumstance" was that you were a man, you might feel better about involving yourself.)

C'mon - this is all "Ethics 101." It's not hard, really. All ethics are circumstantial: "Ethics" is nothing but the hierarchical application of morality, and the arrival at a workable (and hopefully fair) resolution between opposing moral tenets.


I would in all circumstances try to prevent or stop a rape in progress. It wouldn't matter what the woman was doing or what I thought of her.

So you refuse to involve yourself in a situation between two men, but are willing - even eager - to involve yourself if the object of an attack is a woman. ...Gee, that sounds positively ...sexist.

[MO]

What you are pontificating about is not situational ethics. Of course a small woman can not break up a fight that a large man could. The fact remains that some things are always wrong, regardless of the situation.

[Darwinist]

What you are pontificating about is not situational ethics. Of course a small woman can not break up a fight that a large man could.

You're using your gender as an excuse to avoid doing the "right" thing. That's odious. What are you, someone raised to be the ideal of the stereotypical "Southern Belle?"

Surely you don't have to get physically involved, but could try reasoning with them - even if you have to do it at the top of your lungs?

You can't pick up a phone and dial "911?"

You can't call some passerby for assistance?

You can't go get an "equalizer" like a baseball bat or can of pepper spray, or a gun?

The "helpless female, eh?" Someone who needs to be "taken care of" rather than someone who can "take care of" things? It's a "man's world" and all that?

That's what you're about?


The fact remains that some things are always wrong, regardless of the situation.

Name a few.

[MO]

I didn't say I wouldn't try to help in the capacity that I was capable of. What pod did you hatch out of? For someone who attempts to be so "enlightened" you are certainly patronizing!

Name a few.

Read the book! It's a bestseller.

[Darwinist]

I didn't say I wouldn't try to help in the capacity that I was capable of.

Um, you most certainly DID omit that. Here's the exact quote:
"I wouldn't see an ethical reason to get involved in a situation where two men were fighting."
There. That's it. You offer no exception to not getting "involved." Period. Nada. No remark about "helping in the capacity that I was capable of," just a flat statement of an intention to stay uninvolved.


Read the book! It's a bestseller.

What book - the Bible? I've read that one. While there's much to be admired in it, there's also much to be despised by any thinking being with a moral conscience.

But what's with the dodge - O Outspoken One? I ask you for a source, and you reply cryptically "Read the book!" Are you afraid to identify your source or sources by name?

BTW - what makes you think I'm any more "enlightened" than you? Maybe better educated. Maybe more articulate and erudite. Maybe even better looking. ...And yes, maybe more patronizing too. Faults, I have: how about you?

But "enlightened?" Hey, I'm just another schmuck trying to find out what life's about.

[Ted]

I would really rather have no rapings or fist fights at all, and I'm sure they can be avoided in most cases. You're attempting to flee from the fact that everyone is not equal. According to most liberals, everyone is equal in every way. Let's say I'm taller than a guy named Bill. We're unequal in height. Let's say he is a better fist fighter. We're unequal in boxing. So to suggest that a woman (or most men, for that matter) is capable of breaking up a street fight is, in reality, about as foolish a remark as I've ever heard.

[Darwinist]

I would really rather have no rapings or fist fights at all, and I'm sure they can be avoided in most cases. You're attempting to flee from the fact that everyone is not equal. According to most liberals, everyone is equal in every way.

One of the very first things you'd better figure out about me, Ted, is that I'm not "most liberals."

I rely on objective ratiological argument backed up wherever possible by hard, verified fact; and I utterly despise arguments designed to appeal to emotionalism and "touchy-feeliness." If you ever catch me using one gratuitously, I not only give you permission, I INSIST that you slap the hell out of me. (Understand that I will do the same to you, when the shoe is on the other foot.) My positions are arrived at and maintained because I have subjected them to the most thorough analysis I can. The result of this process is that even though I consider myself liberal, I espouse several "classical" conservative positions: I support capital punishment, the right to bear arms (with a few carefully-chosen philosophical and practical caveats on that last one), and I'm insistent about the acceptance of personal responsibility. At the same time, I'm very methodologically materialist in philosophical thrust: biology IS a significant factor in human behavior and interactions, and we should not try to alter its lead without compelling reason: we are the products of our own evolution, after all.

...IOW, I'm a conservative's worst nightmare - a liberal who thinks. Let me put it in a nutshell for you:

I'm a liberal who has no a priori committment to liberalism

- so it will always be a mistake if you try to stereotype me.


Let's say I'm taller than a guy named Bill. We're unequal in height. Let's say he is a better fist fighter. We're unequal in boxing. So to suggest that a woman (or most men, for that matter) is capable of breaking up a street fight is, in reality, about as foolish a remark as I've ever heard.

Physical inadequacy is not a valid response for doing nothing, and MO indicated that she would do nothing to stop a dispute between two men.

A person is morally obligated (personal responsibility, there) to do what they reasonably CAN do. Screaming at the top of the lungs might be enough; simply being a woman willing to incur the possibility of physical danger might be enough to bring some men back to their senses, so mere proximity could do it. One does what one CAN, not what one CANNOT.

[Rob Larrikin]

Darwinist said:

Hi Darwinist – I would do the same.
(hey, do you know what happened to LNF? If you are a different Darwinist, strike that question)

I'm the same guy. So, LNF is off for you too? That's a minor relief: I was originally getting a "Forbidden" message, and concluded that I'd been banned. Now I'm getting access to a basic Index page, which makes me think their server crashed and is in the process of being restored ...or (less likely, one would like to hope) they got hacked.

Whew – well that is a relief for me too, as I was thinking the same thing. It’s been a while, so I’m beginning to wonder whether LNF was wound up.

Hmm. You’re right. I should have made the question even longer, and more loaded with conditions.

Why? To straightjacket possible responses even further? Is that what you're hoping to do - tweak the conditions of your scenario to the point that no other outcome is possible except the one you want - even at the price of further damaging the already somewhat stretched connection to reality your metaphor currently has? Is there a point to doing that, besides ego-massage?

Er, that was why I wanted to keep it as simple as possible. Go back to square one, and don’t pass go.

It should have read, “Assume that for whatever reason, the police were not available, and that you had a gun, and plenty of friends and witnesses (who would testify that the woman was being raped, so you could not be framed in any way), and again, for any reason you like, you knew that you were perfectly safe and would come to no harm. Would you intervene to save her?”

"...If I knew I'd be perfectly safe and would come to no harm" ...Now you're asking me to assume godlike powers of prescience for the sake of your scenario. That's unreasonable. It automatically throws 'realism' right out the window into the operative oblivion of supernatural attributes and abilities. Your metaphor is no longer workable at this point. Try to keep your feet (and those of your reader) on the ground, please.

I agree. Go back to my original question – it worked fine. It was, “Assume that for whatever reason, the police were not available, and that you had a gun, and plenty of friends and witnesses (who would testify that the woman was being raped, so you could not be framed in any way). Would you intervene to save her?”<br>
You then said that you would only assist her if you did not have to incur any undue risk to yourself, hence my “make Darwinist happy version.” I agree with you, it’s bloated and silly – take it out; return to the first version. We’ll assume that since there is always going to be a level of risk in such an action, that you would not go to the old lady’s help. Is that fair enough?

I made the mistake of assuming that most people would think that taking a gun to stop a rapist raping an old lady would be worth any risk to them that would generally be attached to that exercise.

Only "cowboys" and people with death wishes think that way. Possession of and even the ability to expertly use a firearm is no guarantor against one's own mishap or death in a firefight: ask any cop or soldier in the whole world, if you don't believe me. Undoubtedly there are people who would dive unthinkingly in: but the operative word in that case is unthinkingly. If their actions work, they're a hero - but if they fail they're not just disabled or dead, they're stupidly disabled or dead.

Okay, okay Darwinist. We get the message. You would be so preoccupied figuring out the risks, with your nifty risko-meter calculator, the old lady would be raped three times before you made the grand decision not to help her. Then you’d ring the NY Times to let them in on the great news. Me? I come from a different universe.

By the way, if “little old lady” part of the question was replaced with “someone very close to you, in your family,” would you be placing the “as long as I incurred no undue risk to myself,” condition in your reply?

No difference at all. In fact, I'm even MORE likely to weigh the situation if a family member is involved. I have the option, if I deem it the best choice, of walking away from the old lady and letting the cops handle the situation when they arrive - or even IF they arrive. The old lady is not "family" so I lose tangibly little if she's raped or even killed. But if she's family, then I DO have something tangible to lose - and so a rash decision that backfires will have much worse consequences because not only does she get raped and maybe killed, but possibly I have ensured, by a rash action on my part, that now the loss to "the family" will be TWO members instead of one. Therefore, if the old lady is a member of my family, I'm going to be doubly careful about how I proceed.

Uh – huh. That’s nice. Well, tell them if they’re ever in that kind of trouble and I’m around, I’ll help them – I don’t use a risko-meter when it comes to rape.

If I personally despise the old lady for past wrongs, for example, I might in fact be motivated not only to withhold my footistance, I may even consider grabbing my video camera to record the event, so later I could sell the footage for profit to a news organization, or on the internet!

This was dealt with in two ways, in the original question. Near the start I said the old lady being raped was your friend, and at the end I added, “answers like, “I’m a paraplegic,” or, ”I have no neighbor,” or “What if the old lady is a criminal herself?” are digression and detour. The context of the question is that she is good, he is evil, you can intervene if you want, etc. The only question is, would you or would you not, and if not, why not? Also, please do not answer the questions as if we are talking about Iraq. Answer them simply concerning your reactions to the events within the context - i.e. - the little old lady.”<br>
Looks like you failed to answer the questions properly, old buddy.

[Rob Larrikin]

Darwinist said:

You should re-read the question. I said, “Let’s say that the only way to stop the guy was to shoot him, so you shot him in the leg.” In other words, you tried everything else and it didn’t work; and every second the old lady was still being raped.

I read the question just fine. I simply reject your given conditions. (Think of it as my unique response to the "Kobayashi Maru scenario." 'Google' it, if you don't understand the reference.) I pull the trigger for one of only two possible reasons, under your conditions: to show that I have a gun, or to kill: there is no middle ground.

That’s fine Darwinist. All you had to say in the original questionnaire was, “Yes, I’d shoot him, but not in the leg. In my case I would shoot to kill.”<br>
No big deal. Nothing to get worked up about, old fella . . .

Your intervening was already covered, twice. This question was aimed at you, the interventionist. To spell that out I could have said, “Do you think this intervention of yours would make you the “oppressor,” or would you say you were the “defender?” but I didn’t think it was necessary since we had already established your intervention.

You arrange the question as if you think that 'oppress' and 'defend' are opposite concepts. They're not. They're not even from the same root. It would be a closer (and more honest) comparison to call one the 'aggressor' or 'attacker' and the other the 'defender.' Of course that complicates things a bit since the U.S.-led coalition was undeniably the 'attacking aggressor' in the 2nd Gulf War ...and that completely repudiates the whole point of your scenario. (Aren't you glad this dissection is happening here, rather than at LNF?)

Well I must say Darwinist, that was good for a chuckle. Let me assure you that oppress and defend are very much opposites.

Oppress: To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny.
Defend: To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.
- Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
(Hey, Darwinist, if this be dissection, I’d advise you to put away the 18th Century knives and start using 21st Century laser scalpels.)

If coercion is aggression...

It's not. Let's be clear about definitions: coercion is the application of complusive force, real or perceived, for the attainment of some end. Therefore coercion can be as much defensive as aggressive

So can aggression. They can both be used defensively, which was my point. It’s hard to shoot someone defensively without using aggression, since, killing is aggressive. Get it? Maybe it’s time you put away your dictionaries and started thinking for a change.

You have that wrong. We (the Coalition) invaded Saddam and his thugs; we never invaded the people of Iraq, or Iraq itself – just a thug and his gang.

We never crossed the border of Iraq?? Reality check!!

Steady on big fella. Crossing the border to Kansas to catch a murderer does not mean the FBI is waging war on Kansas. Get a grip.

[Rob Larrikin]

Oh, and Ian was quite right about the duel comment being a joke. Sorry I didn't add a

I'm still getting used to this forum.

[Darwinist]

Er, that was why I wanted to keep it as simple as possible. Go back to square one, and don’t pass go.

Occam's Razor: Do not multiply characters unnecessarily. The principle of parsimony works best in areas beyond that of scientific theorizing too.

My whole point in responding to your scenario, Rob, was to demonstrate that the scenario - both that of the old woman AND the current mess in Iraq for which it is a metaphor - is not as cookie-cutter cut-and-dried as you'd like to think. And I think I have succeeded: you've been brought full circle on some of your scenario's set-piece parameters - from original wording that fails to revamped versions that still fail, back to your original wording, which you now already know fails but you have nowhere else to go.

You can moan about how long it might take me to decide to help the old lady (in a real-life situation like that, it would probably take no more than a few seconds of direct observation of the situation), and try to make comparisons to family, and search for motivations and do all the other stuff you've tried to throw off the scent. But the fact remains: there may be sound reasons NOT to help the old lady; and there are definitely sound reasons why we should not have invaded a sovereign country, regardless of how unpopular and unpleasant we - or for that matter his own people! - found its ruler.

And the very fact that to date we still have not found (and are no longer even looking for!) any of the alleged WMDs which were claimed to be an imminent threat to the US - or for that matter a threat at all on any time-scale! - which was the official stated reason for the invasion, our actions there, in hindsight, look like an act of international piracy on a gigantic scale. And if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then the chances are pretty damn good you're looking at barbaric act which has done immense harm to our already spotted international reputation; which has unnecessarily taken the lives of hundreds of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis; which far from stopping it has instead guaranteed that America will be visited by terrorist attacks for decades to come; which has alienated from us any hope of friendly (as opposed to diplomatically 'correct and cordial') relations with many if not most of the world's Muslims and Islamic governments, especially in the strategically vital Middle East; and which has delineated, defined and solidified deep divisions in America's own people.

...All so one cruel man, who represented almost no legitimate threat to US security, could be brought down to satisfy the egos of a few men in power - and in the process further fill the already-overloaded bank accounts of their corporate friends with even more money.