Philosophy Discussion Forums

I just finished writing my own answer to that question from a wise child in #neveragain. I'd been trying to write if for four years, in fact, but this time I did finish it, and it's only 8,000 words.

As such my own opinion could be biased from overstudy.

Before publishing it in print, in about three months, I do want to hear other answers off the cuff, if you would be so kind to answer. If it makes sense to include in my book too, I would like to ask permission to include it.

ernestm wrote: ↑March 8th, 2018, 9:48 pm I'd been trying to write if for four years, in fact, but this time I did finish it, and it's only 8,000 words.

That it took you so long, and so many words, illustrates your simple ethical confusion, not some 'rational conclusion', but a psychological rationalization!

I can do it in 16 words;
The 'good guy' doesn't shoot you (or anyone else)!
Actually, healthy 'good guys' don't need guns. *__-

In the USA, all kinds of people have guns - not just guys, but dolls and ladies and little tykes, too.
You can learn something about a stranger by his or her bearing, speech and manners, but you can't know their degree of goodness without close acquaintance. You can very quickly learn their degree of badness in some extreme situation, but not if they're sneaky enough. A further complication is that most people don't know their own degree of goodness or potential badness until it's tested by extreme situations. Others still are bad in some ways and good in others, or bad in your estimation but good in their own, or vice versa. Then again, people who are half and half may consider using a gun for either good or bad or what they consider to be good or bad, in certain situation, but not in others.

To be on the safe side, it would be better if nobody had a gun and we explored our relative goodness by no-lethal means.

There are two ways of telling whether a person with a gun is good or bad:

1. thorough psychometric testing

2. after the fact.

ernestm wrote: ↑March 8th, 2018, 9:48 pm I just finished writing my own answer to that question from a wise child in #neveragain. I'd been trying to write if for four years, in fact, but this time I did finish it, and it's only 8,000 words.

As such my own opinion could be biased from overstudy.

Before publishing it in print, in about three months, I do want to hear other answers off the cuff, if you would be so kind to answer. If it makes sense to include in my book too, I would like to ask permission to include it.

Why guess, If anyone is walking around with a gun you should notify authorities. If you're asking how to tell a good cop from a bad cop.. just assume and treat them as respectfully as possible before you can make your exit.

Some folks with guns carry a badge, some don't. If you live in a rural area they're probably both good guys. If you live in an urban area and you're white, the badge carrier has a much higher chance of being a good guy. If you are black, too bad, they're probably both bad.

We can't learn.

I would sometimes agree that both classes are identical, the good guys just hide behind their image. If we truly impose this question honestly we should think about the two dimensions of the problem psychology and society. Both cooperate and change the personality of an individual that much that they become the person they never intended to be.

Is the person responsive to reason?

Greta wrote: ↑March 31st, 2018, 7:45 pm Is the person responsive to reason?

The majority of the bad guys aren't.

Well depends on the viewport of the spectator , as we've seen in falling down, the persons that are really dangerous are sometimes everyday people with a previously good reputation, whose life came somehow out of control. This may be caused by social, financial or health losses. Michael Douglas depicted the person he represented in the movie as a normal citizen in an interview.

Or just think about Robert de Niros Taxi-Driver (the movie), in which he depicts a veteran person who somehow cannot cope with the everyday life anymore. At least from the beginning depicted as a normal person.

I think the filmer László Krasznahorkai , said that the majority of those people have a different social standard than the average public official and that U.C.Davis Cost studies, show that others aren't that well off then.

And Lszlo Krasznahorkai, is such good writer of novels, that he received the 2015 den Man Booker International Prize.

LuckyR wrote: ↑April 1st, 2018, 1:37 am

Greta wrote: ↑March 31st, 2018, 7:45 pm Is the person responsive to reason?

The majority of the bad guys aren't.

Yes. I find there are two keys - openness and responsiveness to reason.

In my experience if someone is not open and not responsive to reason then they are either seeking to gain advantage for a hidden agenda or neurotic.