Philosophy Now Forum

The simple logic of "he did it first" or "he started" to a situation is true and completely rational thinking.

The cause of events is not of irrelevance, quite the contrary it is highly relevant who began the act of ie. violence.

If you start to hit me in the face, and I hit you in the face, my act ought to become of less importance in judicial terms while yours should cause the heaviest punishment.

It follows rational thinking: The cause of events. If you didn't start, I wouldn't have reacted either, so it is your fault entirely for starting the entire violence and starting the domino-effect resulting in court and punishment.

But somehow adults always dismiss the "who-started" as being irrelevant. Why?

To be settled in the courts?

Even if someone throws the first punch, it does not mean he started "it".

One can have a very good reason to strike first. Like threats or humiliations, or a combination of those.

philosopher wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:06 pm If you start to hit me in the face, and I hit you in the face, my act ought to become of less importance in judicial terms while yours should cause the heaviest punishment.

It follows rational thinking: The cause of events. If you didn't start, I wouldn't have reacted either, so it is your fault entirely for starting the entire violence and starting the domino-effect resulting in court and punishment.

But somehow adults always dismiss the "who-started" as being irrelevant. Why?

The judicial case has three obvious aspects. There's provocation, which has an accepted role in the assignment of blame. Self defence, in which case you are covered. And then there's retaliation which is not permitted. If the guy who hit you stops and says sorry, you aren't allowed to beat him until his bones are soup.

We are deemed to be in control of ourselves, and thereby responsible for our actions. He did it first is fine in as far as it goes, but the response is nonetheless the result of a choice, and we are held to account for our choices. Therefore we are required to not respond in excess.

Wyatt Earp lived to 80 or so. Know how he did it? He hit the guy hard before the guy could cause more trouble than just being a smart mouth.

Are you suggesting one cannot have rational reasons for performing immoral acts? Theft, lying, backstabbing, these things are not irrational yet they're immoral.

Self-defence is treated differently so I'm not sure why you'd bring up that point.

I think the main problem here is that the logic of "two wrongs don't make a right" has real importance because otherwise, it would just be an endless escalation of retaliation and that's why "turning the other cheek" is central to Western morality. I mean there are cultures that have different views about this but I personally think they're all inferior because it'd be better to have less people doing immoral things and that can't be achieved by saying "it's less wrong if someone did something bad to you first".

Western morality is centred around personal responsibility and that means personal accountability. You can't control how others act towards you but you can control how you act in response and you need to take responsibility for what it is that you do rather than blaming others. Exceptions to that like self-defence are recognised but I think you'll struggle to find more examples because realistically, the alternative is simply senseless vigilantism.

philosopher wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:06 pm The simple logic of "he did it first" or "he started" to a situation is true and completely rational thinking.

The cause of events is not of irrelevance, quite the contrary it is highly relevant who began the act of ie. violence.

If you start to hit me in the face, and I hit you in the face, my act ought to become of less importance in judicial terms while yours should cause the heaviest punishment.

It follows rational thinking: The cause of events. If you didn't start, I wouldn't have reacted either, so it is your fault entirely for starting the entire violence and starting the domino-effect resulting in court and punishment.

But somehow adults always dismiss the "who-started" as being irrelevant. Why?

what abults? i'm an adult and note who starts it.

i live by Reciprocity.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:23 pm Even if someone throws the first punch, it does not mean he started "it".

ummmmmm

yes it does.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:23 pm One can have a very good reason to strike first. Like threats or humiliations, or a combination of those.

ummmmmm nope.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:55 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:06 pm If you start to hit me in the face, and I hit you in the face, my act ought to become of less importance in judicial terms while yours should cause the heaviest punishment.

It follows rational thinking: The cause of events. If you didn't start, I wouldn't have reacted either, so it is your fault entirely for starting the entire violence and starting the domino-effect resulting in court and punishment.

But somehow adults always dismiss the "who-started" as being irrelevant. Why?

The judicial case has three obvious aspects. There's provocation, which has an accepted role in the assignment of blame. Self defence, in which case you are covered. And then there's retaliation which is not permitted. If the guy who hit you stops and says sorry, you aren't allowed to beat him until his bones are soup.

We are deemed to be in control of ourselves, and thereby responsible for our actions. He did it first is fine in as far as it goes, but the response is nonetheless the result of a choice, and we are held to account for our choices. Therefore we are required to not respond in excess.

yep.

not to respond in excess.............up equal to original offence is ok.

Judaka wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:52 am Are you suggesting one cannot have rational reasons for performing immoral acts? Theft, lying, backstabbing, these things are not irrational yet they're immoral.

there may be extenuating circumstances.

all is not black/white. and why we have courts/juries.

Judaka wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:52 am Self-defence is treated differently so I'm not sure why you'd bring up that point.

circumstances, and why we have courts/juries even in some cases of self defense,

to determine if it was so and not just murder.

Judaka wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:52 am I think the main problem here is that the logic of "two wrongs don't make a right" has real importance because otherwise, it would just be an endless escalation of retaliation and that's why "turning the other cheek" is central to Western morality..

Golden Rule of overrated, Reciprocity more apt in the real world.

Judaka wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:52 am I mean there are cultures that have different views about this but I personally think they're all inferior because it'd be better to have less people doing immoral things and that can't be achieved by saying "it's less wrong if someone did something bad to you first".

rich Saudi's can try buying their way out of a sentence/death - but only if the victim/relatives value money over justice, otherwise they go to jail/lose their heads.

Judaka wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:52 am Western morality is centred around personal responsibility and that means personal accountability. You can't control how others act towards you but you can control how you act in response and you need to take responsibility for what it is that you do rather than blaming others. Exceptions to that like self-defence are recognised but I think you'll struggle to find more examples because realistically, the alternative is simply senseless vigilantism.

Reciprocity is the just course.

there may be extenuating circumstances.

all is not black/white. and why we have courts/jurie

Err, the courts do not trial someone to decide whether someone was being rational but whether or not they broke the law.

Golden Rule of overrated, Reciprocity more apt in the real world.

Reciprocity is the answer to someone antagonizing or provoking you? Doesn't appear to have any relevance at all to the discussion.

rich Saudi's can try buying their way out of a sentence/death - but only if the victim/relatives value money over justice, otherwise they go to jail/lose their heads.

Once again completely irrelevant and besides that, the statement is half true at best. Just a really dumb post actually.

Reciprocity is the just course.

lmao.

gaffo wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:11 am

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:23 pm Even if someone throws the first punch, it does not mean he started "it".

ummmmmm

yes it does.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:23 pm One can have a very good reason to strike first. Like threats or humiliations, or a combination of those.

ummmmmm nope.

Pacifism is a very dangerous ideology, in a world where 2% of all people (150 millions!) are sociopaths.
If nobody stands up to them, they will take total control.

gaffo wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:11 am

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:23 pm Even if someone throws the first punch, it does not mean he started "it".

ummmmmm

yes it does.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:23 pm One can have a very good reason to strike first. Like threats or humiliations, or a combination of those.

ummmmmm nope.

He is right.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:33 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:11 am

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:23 pm Even if someone throws the first punch, it does not mean he started "it".

ummmmmm

yes it does.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:23 pm One can have a very good reason to strike first. Like threats or humiliations, or a combination of those.

ummmmmm nope.

He is right.

Yeah, let have dictators and gangsters rule the world! As long as we don't get our hands dirty! It's Saul Goodman!

QuantumT wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:19 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:11 am

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:23 pm Even if someone throws the first punch, it does not mean he started "it".

ummmmmm

yes it does.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:23 pm One can have a very good reason to strike first. Like threats or humiliations, or a combination of those.

ummmmmm nope.

Pacifism is a very dangerous ideology, in a world where 2% of all people (150 millions!) are sociopaths.
If nobody stands up to them, they will take total control.

I agree - you missunderstood my reply to you (we are in agreement sir) - refer to similar threads about the same thing in others sections of this forum - where i affirm Recipricty over Golden Rule as the better general rule in the real world.

thanks for reply