General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2138312

    I don’t dislike philosophy

    Locked

    by john.a.wills ·

    article root

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2436265

      Philosophy means different things

      by john.a.wills ·

      In reply to I don’t dislike philosophy

      We can talk about the philosophy of a firm or a group of people or an individual person, but this is not the best use of the word. Perhaps there “spirituality” would be better.

      As an intellectual or academic discipline, philosophy seems to me to have 4 main parts. First comes what Nietzche in “Beyond Good and Evil” calls the Prolegomenon to Philosophy, viz. the discussion why we want knowledge; perhaps we think that the truth will make us free, but for all we know the truth will kill us, so why do we seek truth?

      Next comes a very wide field of investigation covering the greatest part of what we commonly think of as the discipline of philosophy. This is the mathesis universalis or scientia scientiarum, including logic and metaphysics (i.e. meta-natural-science) and metamathematics (perhaps). This can be approached in various ways. Many of us here are probably at least vaguely acquainted with Boolos and Jeffrey’s “Computability and Logic”; other approaches are to start with the use of words, as Ogden and Richards do in “The Meaning of Meaning”. The existentialists and phenomenologists and so forth have their own approaches. I have in other threads been trying to do something in the way of conceptual analysis, influenced by Ogden and Richards, among others.

      The scientia scientiarum leads on to the “special sciences”, for each of which there is a kind of philosophical introduction, often to be found in the introduction to a book on one of the special sciences.

      Fourthly, there is one special science, ethics or morality, which is usually lumped in with philosophy.

      In the discussion of gay marriage I have mainly been trying to get the words right, combating the twin evils of homophobia and homosexualism. In the ethics of the matter, which NickNielsen and Palmetto have perhaps jumped into too quickly, we need repeatedly to go back to the mathesis universalis to ensure that we are not unwittingly tripping over words. For as long as we are pretty sure our words are right, we can progress in ethics, where we judge first of all our own desired or actual deeds and then, as appropriate, those of others and our appropriate actions concerning the deeds of others.

      Anyone want to go on from there?

      • #2437487

        You’re tripping over your words

        by av . ·

        In reply to Philosophy means different things

        John, I really have a problem following this discussion when you are talking about the “mathesis universalis” and “scientia scientiarum” and “The Meaning of Meaning”, etc. Why can’t you just quote yourself and do it in plain English. Whatever you are trying to say is lost in a sea of intellectual curiosities.

        This thread originally was about Obama’s comments that homosexuals should have the right to marriage equality under the law. I think they should too and I’m not going to judge what they do in the bedroom. I don’t think anyone else should either and that it should be private. What do you think? Maybe I missed your previous comments, but it looks to me like you are over intellectualizing something that comes down to yes or no.

        Maybe this is a new discussion in a way and I’m totally offbase, but, honestly I’m not sure where this discussion is going in regards to gay marriage.

        AV

    • #2436245

      Ethics and Morals

      by dogknees ·

      In reply to I don’t dislike philosophy

      Are not the same thing. The difference is critical to the discussion and is often overlooked.

      My understanding is that Morals are beliefs you hold that cannot be logically derived from other beliefs. Ethics are the beliefs that can be deduced logically from your moral and other beliefs. This is as described to me by a philosophy professor some years ago and confirms by others since.

      Personally I have little interest in Morals but lot in Ethics, though I’m very interested in digging out peoples “real” moral beliefs and looking at whether their stated ethical beliefs are actually a logical result of those moral beliefs. Of course few of us (if any) can fully meet this standard, but that doesn’t mean it’s not acceptable to ask the questions or to expect people to discuss what they really believe or rather, how they justify their actions with those beliefs.

      Funny how a lot don’t agree though. I wonder what beliefs are behind that and whether those people would admit to them?

      • #2436240

        One of the best ways to describe ethics and morals I’ve come across is:

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to Ethics and Morals

        Ethics is what you call how you evaluate, behave, and regard your interactions with others, and is seen by others and evaluated as such.

        Morals is what you call how you evaluate, behave, and regard your own actions by yourself, and are usually only seen by you. In short, the standards you hold yourself up to.

        Mores are a set of socially accepted rules for interaction with others in your society. Often the laws align with the mores, but that’s not so common today.

        The real fun starts when people start thinking their morals or mores are the ones all should live by.

        • #2436225

          By that definition

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to One of the best ways to describe ethics and morals I’ve come across is:

          double morality is actually simply having a morality more loose than one’s part in the ethics of others.
          Is ethics like bruises then? The impact of the judgment of others? Or the expectation or perception of the judgment of others, perhaps?

        • #2436220

          As I said, it’s the best definition by another I’ve seen. I also think it’s

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to By that definition

          close to reality. I sometimes thinks ethics ins more a social format while morals is a personal format. But ethics definitely relates to how you interact with others, and morals is more how you act by yourself and they’re like two overlapping circles with about a 75% overlap and mores is a third circle that can vary in how it overlaps one or both of the others.

      • #2436212

        Ethics and Morals and the Law

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Ethics and Morals

        I don’t know what ethics and morals have to do with the issue of legalizing same-partner marriage (or with most other laws). This is a legal issue regarding a civil right held by the majority, and extending it to a minority who doesn’t yet have it. State laws say two people are recognized as married by possession of a marriage license. Sometimes not even that is necessary, as in common law marriage. Such recognition and acknowledgement is necessary for the couple to exercise certain privileges extended to marriage pairs under state and federal law. I don’t see this as any different from previously overturned discrimination against couples of mixed race, religion, handicap, etc.

        • #2436192

          Agreed

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to Ethics and Morals and the Law

          But I’m responding to the first post above where the discussion of homosexual marriage was only an example.

        • #2436185

          ethics and morals have NOTHING to do with the law as

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Ethics and Morals and the Law

          the law should be based on mores and what’s right. Sadly the law often has nothing to do with what’s right and only a loose consideration or mores and it frequently based on the personal morals of some head in the posterior politician, or group their of, in response to some loud mouths in a lobby group.

        • #2437427

          Morals vs What’s Right

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to ethics and morals have NOTHING to do with the law as

          If not by the study and application of agreed moral standards, and ethics based logically upon those morals, how would one determine “mores” and “what’s right”?

          After all, philosophy is the tool we as humans have developed to help us determine these things, in the same way as physics is the tool we use to try and understand the way physical reality works at the lowest level.

          While I agree that most of the time legislation is not based upon shared morals and a determination of what effects the legislation is likely to have on those of us by whom the politicians are employed, I can’t agree that it should not be based on morals or ethics as you state.

        • #2437420

          G’day dogknees, you just demonstrated the major mistake

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Morals vs What’s Right

          most people make. Mores are NOT derived from morals at all. It’s simple, morals are an individual’s own set of rules of behaviour that’s unique to them. Mores are another set of behaviour that occasionally look similar but are derived by the community on how the community will relate to each other. From those mores the early laws were created, but things in regards to laws have changed a lot since then.

          A group of can get together and decide what we’ll accept as the minimum standard of behaviour within our little community, but they will never exactly match the morals of any one of us unless one of us runs roughshod over the rest to force our personal morals onto the others.

        • #2436170

          morals and the law

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to Ethics and Morals and the Law

          Palmetto, I think you’ve missed something. If something is immoral, it is immoral of me or of my agent the state to encourage that something. I am not talking about things that are so-to-speak internally immoral to a group, like eating pork for Moslems, but of generally immoral actions, like murder, stealing, etc. Now, suppose you have concluded that mutual masturbation – or whatever reasonable name you want to give to that set of behaviors – is immoral. Then you must vote and write letters to the Assembly and so forth so as to dissuade the state from encouraging mutual masturbation. But same-sex marriage is an encouragement of mutual masturbation, so you must vote and publicly argue against it.

          This has nothing in parallel with discrimination against mixed-race couples (a historical oddity unique, I think, to South Africa and certain of the United States, thought I could be wrong): “They’re equating their sin with my skin” as someone in the Southern Baptist Conference put it a few days ago.

          One problem is that condom use is as much mutual masturbation as buggary, but the homophobes don’t get this.

        • #2436165

          Yes, I’m missing something.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to morals and the law

          I’m missing why you keep equating sex with marriage. Neither is necessary for the other.

          I’m missing why certain actions are not considered a bar to marriage among heterosexuals, but are when homosexuals perform the exact same acts. I’m missing how the morality of a set of actions is determined solely by genders of those performing them.

          I’m missing why those actions should block homosexuals from accessing advantages already available to heterosexual pairings who perform the same acts; advantages like favorable financial opportunities, hospital visitation, workplace benefit programs, and government-granted privileges.

          What’s legally good for the goose AND gander is good for the goose and goose (or gander and gander).

        • #2436145

          homosexual and heterosexual again…

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to Yes, I’m missing something.

          I thought I’d shown those concepts to be improper. Translating however, I point out that there exists no encouragement in the present SC laws on marriage to engage in mutual masturbation; there would if same-sex unions were registered in the same way as marriages. There may not be much we can do about two-sex couples engaging in mutual masturbation, but we should not encourage it. Assuming, that is, that mutual masturbation is immoral.

        • #2436137

          Huh?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to homosexual and heterosexual again…

          If SC laws permitting mixed-gender marriages don’t encourage heterosexual couples to engage in sex, why would permiting homosexual marriage encourage it? I’m not following that either. It still sounds like you’re saying marriage equals sex. Permitting isn’t encouraging; the sale of tobacco products is permitted while as a society we actively DIScourage their use.

          Why would we want to do anything about heterosexual couples engaging in any form of sex? Who are they harming?

          In simple, basic, one-syllable words, break down for me what you mean by mutual masturbation and how that differs from what we rednecks call ‘sex’. In your opinion, is it Immoral? Why? If it isn’t, what reasons remain to oppose same-sex marriage?

          I’m not following why you think the concepts of heterosexuality or homosexuality are improper either. One is the preference of a partner of the opposite gender; the other is the preference of a partner of the same gender. How are these concepts invalid? If I’m not heterosexual (and as I use the word, I am), then how should I describe my preference?

          I assume you’re not playing word games, but your choices of words are obscuring your position, not clarifying it.

        • #2437470

          Sometimes trying to be precise can mean losing perspective…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Huh?

          The fact is, that words we use are “imprecise” for a reason, a couple of reasons, actually.
          Firstly, actual precision would make the language incredibly cumbersome, either we’d need to construct qualifying and determining “frills” for each term to nail it down to a narrow field of meaning (can’t ever even be point-shaped), or we create new narrow terms for each meaning we can ever conceive of, boosting our vocabulary learning needs by factors of ten. That’s the reason of economy.
          The second reason is, that we’re actually very very good at navigating ambiguity. That’s a basic function of our neuronic brains. We allow a multitude of factors to codefine the meaning of each word, drawing from stuff like how a person speaks it, what the general context is, what the “historic” context of the discussion is (shared discussion history), etc. etc.
          We usually only get things wrong when we [b]want[/b] to. That’s the reason of ability.
          So, we’re “imprecise” because A) “It’s what we can afford” and B) “Because we can”.

        • #2437401

          Couples engaging in sex

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to Huh?

          i.e. in sexual intercourse, i.e. in intersexual course, are quite a distinct reality from couples engaging in pseudosexual activity. You are really bright enough to make the distinction. As for the use of words, please note that linguistic and conceptual analysis belong to what I in the introductory entry of this thread called the scientia scientiarum. We know that we are going to use our cleaned-up language in the ethical/moral realm of discourse, but we should be able to get our terms straight without the emotions engendered by ethical discussion. In the Prolegomenon I mentioned above, there is a choice to be made between on the one hand emphasizing the conscious mind and on the other exalting subconscious and even visceral functions; only if we take the former possibility do we even get properly into philosophical and scientific questions.

        • #2437341

          Sexual acts:

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Huh?

          Any acts performed to satisfy sexual needs or desires.
          One person’s normal chore can be the fetishists sexual act.
          The point: As each person has a right to not be made a part of other’s sexual lives without their consent, it is perfectly OK to ask a fetishist to refrain from performing their fetish in your presence, even if it would not be OK to ask a non-fetishist from performing the equivalent chore in your presence.

        • #2437326

          Pseudosexual activity?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Huh?

          Are you saying the only moral sexual activity is coitus? That any sexual play that ends in sexual climax and not coitus is immoral?

          That seems to be the conclusion you are leading up to.

        • #2437324

          I’m with Ansu and Nick

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Huh?

          Are you saying copulation is the One True Sex? Is it moral for recreational purposes when the participants actively attempt to block pregnancy, or only moral when reproduction is a possible result? Is it moral to start with a non-coital ‘psuedosexual’ activity if the eventual intent is to have intercourse, or are all forms of foreplay immoral too?

          “It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”

        • #2437317

          “It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Huh?

          Santee was here.
          Heck, let that be “is here”, regardless of definitions 😀

        • #2437310

          Hey Palmy, now watch the pidgeon’s fly! Alert – some religious content.

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Huh?

          A few points I wish to make on where this sub thread is going:

          1. Whether a particular act or action is moral or not is a personal issue based on each person’s individual morals. Thus, what may be immoral for one is moral for another – example, eating pork is moral for most people but not for some others.

          2. If by moral you mean – what’s permitted by my particular religious sub-group – then you are nor speaking about what’s moral or immoral for all but only what’s permitted by your religious teachers and how they regards what’s not permitted and in a more religious setting what they don’t permit are more often termed as sins. But what is permitted and isn’t permitted, ie what is a sin and what isn’t, is all relative to that religious group’s teachings and ONLY applies to those who follow those teachings and can have NO bearing on anyone NOT a member of that group. Thus it is a sin for Muslim or Jew to eat pork and not a sin for a Christian to eat pork, despite the prohibition for the first two being in the same section of religious teachings all three draw their doctrine from.

          3. If you claim to be a follower of any of the Abrahamic religions (ie Jew, Muslim, or Christian) then you are aware of the basic doctrine in those scriptures of Free Will or Free Agency where God threw down Satan for daring to say he would force all of mankind to worship God and God replied that he would let them choose. Thus, when anyone says to another that they MUST do this or that because it’s what God want, they are actually saying they believe themselves to be more important than God because they are trying to take away their Free Will that was given them by God to allow them to make their own decisions and choices.

          I’ll leave the rest of the thesis for another time as this is what’s most relevant here.

        • #2437414

          Why?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to homosexual and heterosexual again…

          Why does having a feeling that something is wrong oblige one to use lethal force (government) to prevent others from doing it to themselves and each other, under consent?
          If it is not harmful in a way that a doctor can define, it’s a very odd and very protestant fallacy to say that one has to go snooping and gossiping about stuff that doesn’t concern oneself.

          The old testament, and originally the new one as well, engenders a sort of communal damnation, if a part of the people was out of line, the whole nation might be toasted on a spit for the enjoyment of some ex-mesopotamian demon… are we still doing that?

        • #2437402

          Because…

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to Why?

          Well, not really “because”, because you have slightly missed my point. It is one thing to prevent others doing something immoral and another to refuse to encourage them to do it. If you believe that, say, mutual masturbation is immoral, it is wrong of you to encourage others to engage in such practices, and same-sex “marriage” is indeed an encouragement of such behavior. That is quite different from the actual attempt to punish such behavior, as the law of north Carolina does (or did until recently – I think there’s a U.S. court decision overturning such laws, even when, as in NC’s case, they apply equally to same-sex and two-sex couples.) and as David Bahati would have the law of Uganda do. Such law requires different justification from the refusal to call same-sex unions “marriage”.

        • #2437342

          You know that one doesn’t hold up, don’t you?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Why?

          If I refuse to encourage others to do something, that requires exactly zero action from me.
          It certainly doesn’t require me to invoke government power or form pickets or protest anything.
          Even less can it require me to perform such actions to stop things that are not fundamentally connected to the thing I refuse to encourage.
          An example: Let’s pretend that I find littering the park to be immoral, so I stop myself from encouraging people to go litter in the park. Fine. I may even go so far as to tell people whom I encounter littering the park that I think they’re doing something bad.
          However; If I start petitioning the Park Authority to prevent people from going to the park altogether, then I am clearly overstepping all requirement.
          Do you see what I mean?
          Also; there’s a fundamental disconnect in the premise, too: Do you think gay couples will engage in fewer sexual acts while unmarried than while married? Doesn’t hold true for heterosexual couplings either: if anything, people in monogamous married couples might well have *less* sex than their less settled peers.
          So, getting married could be seen as an encouragement to settle down and A) have less immoral sex (assuming it is immoral) plus B) have that reduced amount of immoral sex with a smaller circle of partners.
          What’s not to like (from a immorality-reduction viewpoint)?

        • #2437320

          Sorry, you lost me again.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Why?

          “If you believe that, say, mutual masturbation is immoral, it is wrong of you to encourage others to engage in such practices, and same-sex “marriage” is indeed an encouragement of such behavior.”

          How does the extension of a civil right encourage a physical behavior? You’re back to arguing that marriage automatically implies certain physical behaviors, regardless of the names we use for them. What about mixed-gender couples who, for physical reasons (paralysis, impotence, heart condition, etc), are unable to engage in intercourse? Does allowing them to marry ‘encourage’ non-coital behavior? How? Exactly what is the mechanism by which this encouragement works?

          As to observing the immoral behavior of others, there’s nothing you can do about it except anger them with your efforts. They’re as convinced they are right as you believe you are. Besides, what makes a set of harmless behaviors willingly engaged in ‘immoral’?

        • #2437311

          The only explanation is fear of communal smiting…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Why?

          Some people believe that there is an omnipotent, omniscient god who wants nothing more than to get an excuse to kill off entire peoples because some percentage x of those people engages in some arbitrary activity… they know because some guy wrote it in the Bible.

          My take on it: If people believe in a God who speaks like Dirty Harry, then they have bigger problems than *other* people playing hide the wiener with the “wrong” company.

        • #2436159

          a law should be about what’s required for the peaceful interaction

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to morals and the law

          of people in a community or society. Morals are individual, unique to that individual, and have nothing to do with the running of the community or the society. Morals should NEVER be translated into laws. Mores are a sort of half way step and may sometimes be translated into laws.

          You say murder, which is killing, is immoral for the individual and the state, yet there are times it’s not only moral but you’re obliged to kill someone – self defence, defence of family, execution of a very dangerous criminal – all legalised killing and a form of murder. That’s just one set of examples.

        • #2436143

          not all killing is murder

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to a law should be about what’s required for the peaceful interaction

          I agree that some killing of persons is justified. Furthermore, there may be murders we cannot do much about. But we should never encourage murder. Similarly, if mutual masturbation is immoral, we should never encourage that.

        • #2436139

          I guess you missed the point I was trying to make about

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to not all killing is murder

          the law and calling something immoral as not being related at all. Murder is a purely legal interpretation of one sub group of killing, while the only time killing comes up in discussions about morals it’s always said to be wrong in all forms. Thus claiming murder / killing as immoral just shows that morality or immorality has nothing to do with killing or murder.

          Morality or immorality is a purely personal matter.

          Laws are a community matter and made to enable all those in the community to get along. Killing, and specifically murder, are frowned upon by the community as it interferes with getting along with everyone.

          Sorry I wasn’t so clear in the first place.

        • #2437469

          Free of context, no killing is murder.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I guess you missed the point I was trying to make about

          A killing is a fact of established causality.
          Murder is a judgment based on a codified combination of culture, ethics and happenstance.
          For example: to me, capital punishment is state-sponsored premeditated murder, in contrast to the “spur of the moment” state murders that occur during war, law enforcement, etc.

          I’d rather that neither occur. But I realize that that’s my judgment, based on my own (absolutely correct :p) perception and conceptualization of “good”. I know for a fact that there are people out there, who feel that both should occur [b]more[/b].

        • #2437284

          Whereas…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I guess you missed the point I was trying to make about

          My [absolutely correct 🙂 ] perception gives rise to my belief that there are people out there breathing air I’m going to need later in life and that those people should be allowed (forcibly, if necessary) to cease respiration as soon as they are discovered.

          Not all of those people have committed (or will commit) acts the state or society might consider criminal or “immoral”, but my judgement nonetheless is that we are better off without them in our world.

          Don’t ask me to specify the criteria: it’s like pornography. I know it when I see it. B-)

        • #2437282

          Hey Nick, just let nature take it’s course.

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to I guess you missed the point I was trying to make about

          nature has only one remedy for gross stupidity, death. it’s called action based evolution. The problem is that civilised society has created another option for the grossly stupid – it’s called being an elected official

        • #2437225

          Plans are in the works

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I guess you missed the point I was trying to make about

          for conflating the two states 😀

        • #2437426

          Disagree On Killing

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to a law should be about what’s required for the peaceful interaction

          You are not automatically obliged to kill to defend a family member. If my brother killed someone, I’d be the one taking him to the police! If I caught him molesting a minor, I’d be the one hitting him with the baseball bat. While you might “want” to protect your family, that doesn’t translate into a “right” to do so in all situations. Blindly following our emotional imperatives is stupid and is no excuse. We kerb many of our drives and feelings to be able to live safely and comfortably in a society, this is just another one we should examine.

          And while I might be the one with the “bat”, I would expect to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and would not expect the reasons for my actions to affect the sentence. While self defence may be enshrined in law as a legitimate reason for killing another, that’s no recommendation or indication that it ever should have been, or should continue to be the law.

          The same thing applies in self-defence. The law doesn’t say you are obliged to kill to defend yourself. It says that if you choose to do so, it may be considered to be a reasonable, lawful excuse. These are two very different statements.

          Kant’s philosophical principle of universalisability states that the same ethical principles should be applied to all people, regardless of any family connections and even regardless of how you might feel toward a person. While it is not agreed by all philosophers that this should be a fundamental principle of ethics, it is difficult to argue with the idea.

          It is a pretty hard standard to live up to, but no more so that the tenets of the major religions.

        • #2437418

          Actually, under the laws in many jurisdictions you ARE legally

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Disagree On Killing

          obliged to kill someone in certain situations that are covered by self defence. The basic law in most countries self defence covers the defence of your own person, your immediate family, your employees, your employer, and guests in your house when confronted by someone who is threatening them with real harm and is in a position to do so. If that threat is sufficient to justify lethal force, then you usually end up killing them. However, in some countries employees are legally required to use lethal force to defend their employers when threatened with severe harm, failure to do so would see them facing serious charges.

          In most legal jurisdictions all citizens are charged by the law to use sufficient force as is necessary to stop a person or persons committing a crime of any sort when they observe them committing a crime or know they are about to commit a crime. Yet you rarely see people doing that as few are prepared to help the community to that extent today.

          edit to add: as regards to Kant, I’ve a very simple and basic philosophy that’s more in line with the way the world really works: You leave me alone, I leave you alone; you treat me right, I treat you right; you attempt to harm me and mine, and I’ll rip your bleeding head off. In short, I reflect back to you how you treat me.

        • #2437415

          Lethal force is a bit of a fuzzy term…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Actually, under the laws in many jurisdictions you ARE legally

          There are a lot of things that could be lethal, but often aren’t.
          I would start counting as “lethal force” all things that have more than a fluke risk of causing death. An yes, a punch to the face is in the border zone. A push is too, if an obliging truck decides to get involved.

          I don’t think it’s possible to say that “the circumstances allow up to and including lethal force” is the same as “the circumstances obliges to kill”.

        • #2437309

          Ansu, what we’re now into is that grey area of definitions

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Actually, under the laws in many jurisdictions you ARE legally

          and that’s one of the few things where general usage and legal usage can vary a huge amount. When you have any new piece of legislation enacted by the government they ALWAYS have a bunch of definitions in them either right at the start or spread through out. The definitions in the legislation are there with the intent of giving a clear cut meaning of how a word and definition is intended to be interpreted for the the specific law in question and it overrides the general usage meaning. Any example of this is the NSW Crimes Act has a definition of a child as being anyone of either gender who has not yet attained the age of eighteen years, yet the general usage definition is usually seen as anyone not yet twelve year of age and the human developmentalists see it as anyone not yet ten years of age.

          In most legal jurisdictions a single punch in the face is NOT seen as lethal force or potential lethal force unless the person delivering it has had special training to make the punch a lot more than what is delivered by the average person. Thus such a punch by a professional boxer is likely to be regarded as lethal force but not when given by an untrained average Joe.

          The wording I used in ‘up to and including lethal force’ is exactly as how it’s usually written in the laws. However, and example of when I obliged to apply lethal force – the use of a firearm against another is always regarded as the application of lethal force, even when it can be used in a non lethal way like shooting them in the leg etc. An armed guard sees a person draw a hand gun and take aim and another person, the guard is twenty-five feet away, too far to run over and interfere in time. If he does NOT draw his own weapon and use it as the situation requires to stop the other person he is open to being charged for negligent homicide or being an accomplice under some laws. The guard may draw his own weapon and decide to call on the other to drop their weapon and surrender if he feels he has enough time, or he may just shoot, but failure to act when he could will see him in trouble as he’s seen as having a higher responsibility due to being armed etc. Not all legal jurisdictions see things this way, but some do – and that’s just one example.

        • #2437230

          Ah, I get it now.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Actually, under the laws in many jurisdictions you ARE legally

          Enforcers may in fact be obliged to use lethal force by circumstances… but I still think that’s a special case.

Viewing 1 reply thread