Agreed on Kate Upton.
This is a discussion on Destroying Anti-Gun Arguments - An Ethical Philosophy Approach within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I apologize for the lengthiness of this post, but it's something that I have studied a lot lately and to which I have given a ...
I apologize for the lengthiness of this post, but it's something that I have studied a lot lately and to which I have given a lot of thought. Read on if you are interested in the title, if not, I wish you a good day. The framework for this post comes from Stefan Molyneux of Freedoman Radio. If you are interested in philosophy and how it affects things such as morality and government, I recommend you check him out. He is fairly radical, but at the very least he makes you think about your own position. I think we can all agree that is a good thing. I just want to make sure I put credit where it is due, as this is basically plagiarized from one of his podcasts. I just think it is important to spread this kind of thinking in the pro-gun ownership community. In this post I will discuss the philosophical question of "is gun ownership morally justifiable, or is it morally unacceptable."
Typically arguments for or against firearm ownership take place utilizing two types of arguments, the argument from effect and the fallacious appeal to authority.
The argument from effect is where both sides spar by presenting statistics which support their position. Fundamentally, this results in a stalemate. The reason for this is that there are too many factors which can affect things like crime rates, murder statistics, and the other measures on which these arguments are based. Essentially, both sides can claim correlation, but the burden of proof for causation is very high and nigh impossible with statistical calculations that have so many factors (especially when we are talking about human behavior). The argument from effect can be fun to engage in, but ultimately is a waste of time and counter-productive. The anti-gun crowd will always seek out studies that justify their position (even if the methods by which the study is performed are questionable, as is usually the case), and will continue to hold their beliefs and probably even stronger so after the argument.
I refuse to discuss the Second Amendment in a debate about gun control. Pointing to the Second Amendment is an appeal to authority, and is a fallacious argument when used as the only justification for behavior. Don't fall into this trap, it makes the person positing the argument look backwards, stupid, and unable to form reasonable arguments for their position.
Instead, the most preferable way to engage in these types of discussions is through the argument for morality. Human beings, for the most part, are swayed by morality as they want to believe they are doing the right thing. The branch of philosophy wherein the rightness and wrongness of actions is discussed is Ethics. Philosophy has verifiable rules, and everything must be logical or it must be dismissed.
First, the existence of universally preferable behavior must be established. This is a fairly simple task. Typically the only roadblock to this is a person who believes in subjective morality which varies by time, place, and culture. This position is easily refuted. Subjective morality has a position that there are no universal ethical rules, and that the rules change from time to time and place to place. This is itself a contradiction. One cannot logically claim that there is a universal moral rule that there are no universal moral rules. I have also come across people that don't believe morality exists at all, as ridiculous as it sounds. This is easily refuted by using their own position. If they believe in gun control, then they must believe that there are rules for preferable human behavior. Rules for preferable human behavior are moral rules by definition, and therefore morality must exist.
Next comes the verification of the person's position, or definition. Definition is a wonderful thing, because as Socrates said, once you have definition you can really start messing with people's minds. First we will start with the extreme position, and then I will present the logical response to each position. Remember, we are looking for a universal rule for preferable behavior, key word being universal.
"Gun ownership is morally wrong." This position also includes "guns should be banned."
Great, gun ownership is morally wrong. Therefore, take away everybody's guns. We can live in a violence free society, there will be no war, and we can go ahead and disband the police and the military, or at least just take away their guns and give them instruction books on negotiation tactics. This argument is an uncommon one, but people need to at least have the logical counterpoint presented in order to address the second which will arise after people are presented with the logical extension of their sweeping position.
"We can't disband the police or the military! Who will protect us? The police need guns!"
This is a fascinating position. In order for there to be a universal moral rule that the police should be the only ones with guns, there needs to be some kind of justifiable, demonstrable difference between the military and the rest of the population. What is it about the police that makes a moral justification for them having a monopoly on gun ownership? Are they morally superior? Clearly not, police corruption is a major problem. Are they biologically different? No, they have essentially the same genetic code as the rest of us. What about when they are off duty, on vacation, or retired? This creates a situation where the moral nature of a human's behavior varies based on time. I addressed this above, moral behavior cannot vary with time because you have constructed a situation where there is a universal moral rule that changes constantly. That isn't how universality works. Regardless, the fact is that the moral and ethical character of the people that supposedly need guns is no different than that of the majority of society.
People will make the argument that the police need guns, because they need some way to enforce the moral rule that guns are morally wrong. This argument is contradictory. It boils down to "guns are good to own, because guns are bad to own."
They also argue that the police need guns to protect themselves against criminals. So protecting yourself against criminals is good. So if protecting yourself against criminals is good, it is good for not only the police but also for private citizens. You cannot claim that self defense is morally justifiable for one person, but not for another. Therefore, gun ownership for citizens cannot be morally wrong.
Next, some crazy people will claim that self defense is morally wrong. To this assertion, the simple response is to demand that the person give you their wallet or you will get really mad. If they refuse, then they are hypocrite. Clearly if they will defend themselves against your request for their property, then self defense is morally justifiable and they don't know what the hell they are talking about.
People cannot make a logical argument that is not one of "gun ownership is morally wrong" or "gun ownership is morally acceptable." When we are talking about law, we can't make decisions based on the opinion "I don't like guns." That is like making a law based on the opinion that "I think Kate Upton is really hot." Moral rules are universal, and categorizing people based on things like working for the State makes no sense. You do not change the moral character of a human being when you have them put on a costume. When you start making laws based on logically unjustified position then millions of people tend to end up killed.
Agreed on Kate Upton.
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
"Next, some crazy people will claim that self defense is morally wrong."
We're starting to hear that already with the masses calling for repeals of SYG and other self-defense laws. Apparently they believe that law-abiding citizens must have a duty to retreat, and a moral responsibility not to own/carry firearms while criminals have neither. That's crazy!!!
Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.
I will engage in the Socratic method in order to strengthen our pro gun stance.
Police have guns, but they have more extensive training and background checks (psych eval). So (says the anti-gunner) you can have a gun if you pay for the psych eval and police academy equivalent training.
The military is morally and genetically equal to the People, but they have tanks, rocket launchers and nukes. Should we all have access to that?
**you have the beginning of a strong argument. I think it can be focused and made stronger. I wouldn't discount the 2A and the philosophy behind it.
Solid arguments, but referring to the Second Amendment, if argued properly, does not make you backwards. If you are able to understand and articulate the basic concept of rule of law properly, your opponent will be the one who is exposed as being completely backwards.
An important thing of note, is that this argument also leads to the illogical conclusion that untrained or psychologically impaired people do not have the right to self defense with all possible tools. This is rather absurd, as we do not see these things in the natural world. A lion doesn't lose its right to defend itself with its claws because it is young or "untrained." It also does not lose its right to defend itself with its claws if it is a "psychologically distrurbed lion" (if such a thing can exist).
Many anti-gun arguments that a put forward require a position of moral relativism (setting up different rules for different groups of people), which I broadly addressed in the OP. They also hinge on an argument of appeal to the emotion of fear, which is fallacious. Fear is not necessarily reason, it is just a primal fight or flight response to a perceived threat, whether real or imagined.
Actually it is very easy to argue that morality is subjective and situation conditional. Is it wrong to kill a person? Yes, unless it is in self-defense or defense of others. Is it wrong to steal? Yes, unless you have no choice to feed your family. Is it wrong to lie? Yes, unless you most to protect your family, or country, or... For every universal moral imperative you can find exceptions, there for there are no universal moral imperatives.
You start off talking about the "appeal to authority" logic fallacy and yet, fall to multiple other logic fallacies; reductio ad absurdum, illicit negative, alternative syllogism, asserting the consequent, appeal to consequences of a belief, just to name to a few.
Destroying anti-gun arguments is not that complicated. As gun ownership has increased in the United States, murders and violent crime as decreased; egro, gun are not the cause of either. A firearm is a tool with no control of how it will be used, just as a hammer can be used to build, it can also be used to harm, a gun can be used to protect or harm, the use to determined by the human, not the tool. There are a little over 11,000 murders using firearms per year and it is believed that over 500,000 violent crimes yearly are prevented every year by using a firearm to defend themselves.
If that is not enough to destroy their arguments, they are not going to listen to anything you have to say and you are wasting your breath.
I appreciate the intellectual argument and logic that the original poster offered for our consideration.
However, IMO self defense is not only a right it is a moral responsibility. To deny yourself or your loved ones of self defense is morally and ethically reprehensible and irresponsible bordering on intentional neglect. In the past the best tools for self defense ranged from clubs, knives, swords, bows and arrows etc. In today's society, in most cases the best way to provide yourself and your loved ones with the appropriate level of self defense is the ownership of a firearm.
Legally registered and used in the proper way and with the appropriate amount of skill, discretion and responsibility self defense using a firearm is both ethically and morally justifiable.
More importantly it needs to remain a viable choice that you, as an individual, are able to make.
It is at least one area where Pro-Choice actually makes sense.
"Life is tough but it's really tough if you are stupid"
"Is it wrong to kill a person?"
This is asking the incorrect question. The correct question is "is the initiation of force immoral?" It is important to remember, I am talking about the initiation of force, not force itself.
"Is it wrong to steal? Yes, unless you have no choice to feed your family."
Disagreed. It is wrong to steal another person's property, full stop, no caveats. The simple fact that your family is starving does not make it moral to take the fruits of another person's labor. Moral rules do not necessitate rosy outcomes. If your family is starving, then you either need to trade labor for food or you need to ask for voluntary charity.
"Is it wrong to lie? Yes, unless you most to protect your family, or country"
Where is the proof that it is morally wrong to lie? This must be proven, and cannot be accepted as fact simply because people don't like liars. Lying itself has no moral value, in my opinion, unless the lie deprives another of their property. Telling a person my name is Ted, when it is not in fact Ted, is not morally wrong. However, in this case it is not the lie that is the moral issue, but rather the deprivation of another's property rights.
Crime statistics include idiots that should not own guns, gang bangers shooting each other, and criminals shooting innocent people; I am none of those.
Statistics can be manipulated to show whatever to want, they likely include police shootings and legal SD when citing numbers for "gun violence".
Ultimately, I am responsible for my and my families safety; any attack, assault, robbery, car-jacking, ect... will likely be over before the police arrive.
Morally speaking, no one but me or God has the right to end my life.
My access to a firearm may be the sole determining factor in whether a nut job or low-life POS ends it for me.
The minimum is not what I want to defend my life with.
Truth as expressed by the Trancendental will exist within or without the rule of law. Everything concerning the Rule of Law as expressed by the practical or the Trancendental within a free society is open for debate. It will be what we say it is within The Law and by trial and Court ruling when necessary.
The rhetoric, both Trancendental and practical, surrounding the right to self defense and the use of force is as old as the taboo against murder itself. The Founders understood this and we should too.
There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
We have deep thinkers and stinkers in this group that could come up with a solution...
Buck the donkey