|
Not Quite The UF Philosophy Corner | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-30 10:33:33 |
| Not quite valid. The statement presupposes the |
by twixt |
2009-03-30 11:06:30 |
first man's opinion as "right". However, an examination of the evidence indicates the first man's opinion is no more valid or invalid than the second man's opinion.
The problem can be resolved by determining with certainty whether those train tracks are abandoned or not. But we are deliberately left with that data unavailable for the purpose of the logic-puzzle.
Wrong, right, true, false - when an experiment cannot be defined to resolve the issue *independently of language* - are all opinions. Even the consequence of guilt is an opinion - since obviously some people would feel guilty in the situation described and others would not, should the man be run over by a train.
The "wrongness" in this situation is the logical fallacy that allows humans to oppress each other. Are there situations where we permit oppression for the greatest good? Of course. The Rule of Law is a very appropriate example.
Does this mean that oppression is a good idea in general simply because we have verifiable cases where oppression contributes to the greatest good? No. The test of reason must prevail and the test of reason fails in the case described above.
However, there is one particular part of the above conundrum that is significant - and which has been minimized or overlooked so far - the fact that the issue is occurring on the first man's property.
In that situation - and for that reason *only* - the first man can impose his will on the second. The first man owns that right by the ownership of the land (the rule of nations, whereby the rule of law is justified).
If the land over which the train tracks run was public land inside a nation of which both men were citizens, then the first man is imposing his will on the second without just cause.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
What makes you feel | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-30 11:10:29 |
|
That's actually the crux of the matter. And is, | by twixt | 2009-03-30 11:40:20 |
|
Does it follow that | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-30 11:58:07 |
|
All statements which cannot be resolved by | by twixt | 2009-03-30 12:37:36 |
|
Does that include the statement | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-30 12:39:34 |
|
Yes. That is a tenet. Like the mathematical | by twixt | 2009-03-30 12:58:24 |
|
That's not necessarily the case. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-30 13:07:20 |
|
OK, I get what you are saying. However, | by twixt | 2009-03-30 13:31:25 |
|
That's not quite what I'm saying | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-30 16:54:31 |
|
For the scientific method to work, a "fact" is | by twixt | 2009-03-30 18:56:53 |
|
All statements in the above form are automatically | by Adiplomat | 2009-03-30 12:55:28 |
|
You wandered into "law" but the discussion was | by Adiplomat | 2009-03-30 11:15:59 |
|
A twist on the rape issue. | by subbywan | 2009-03-30 11:24:21 |
|
I have a hard time buying into this scenario | by Ston | 2009-03-30 11:41:14 |
|
And now you have a situation where there | by twixt | 2009-03-30 11:50:08 |
|
Depends on the social circles you run in. | by subbywan | 2009-03-30 11:54:56 |
|
I have known the scene to occur, also | by Ston | 2009-03-30 12:51:50 |
|
Reasonably prudent person and assumtion of risk | by basher20 | 2009-03-30 11:44:00 |
