Philosophy Now Forum

I was taught many different perspectives on philosophy. One perspective was that a person cannot simply debate ideas without placing ourselves personally and physically into the debate. Thus when/if someone argues that murder is not immoral, we place ourselves into jeopardy through our statements in the sense that if we ourselves do not object to murder, then we ourselves can be murdered without objection.

In my experience, those who advocate for the unthinkable ultimately have to think of themselves as impervious to their own irrational musings, lest they themselves fall victim to what they preach. In short, one cannot "debate" ideas in isolation of the effect those ideas have on ourselves. And reminding someone who is advocating the unthinkable that they too are a frail human body who is personally advocating for the unthinkable is sometimes warranted.

Thoughts?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 9:45 am Thoughts?

..don't do it Gary..just don't.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 9:45 am I was taught many different perspectives on philosophy. One perspective was that a person cannot simply debate ideas without placing ourselves personally and physically into the debate. Thus when/if someone argues that murder is not immoral, we place ourselves into jeopardy through our statements in the sense that if we ourselves do not object to murder, then we ourselves can be murdered without objection.

In my experience, those who advocate for the unthinkable ultimately have to think of themselves as impervious to their own irrational musings, lest they themselves fall victim to what they preach. In short, one cannot "debate" ideas in isolation of the effect those ideas have on ourselves. And reminding someone who is advocating the unthinkable that they too are a frail human body who is personally advocating for the unthinkable is sometimes warranted.

Thoughts?

Seems to be very limiting.

If a person is fearful or timid, then they won't even dare to debate some ideas.

And it suits people who declare some ideas to be 'unthinkable' and therefore create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation which prevents challenges and debate.

One ought to be able to explore ideas without fear.

The 'unthinkable' may be step in reasoning towards the 'thinkable'.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 9:45 am I was taught many different perspectives on philosophy. One perspective was that a person cannot simply debate ideas without placing ourselves personally and physically into the debate. Thus when/if someone argues that murder is not immoral, we place ourselves into jeopardy through our statements in the sense that if we ourselves do not object to murder, then we ourselves can be murdered without objection.

In my experience, those who advocate for the unthinkable ultimately have to think of themselves as impervious to their own irrational musings, lest they themselves fall victim to what they preach. In short, one cannot "debate" ideas in isolation of the effect those ideas have on ourselves. And reminding someone who is advocating the unthinkable that they too are a frail human body who is personally advocating for the unthinkable is sometimes warranted.

Thoughts?

What if someone doesn't realize that they are treating murder (and murderers) as if murder wasn't immoral in certain situations?...



What I am getting at comes in the form of a question, and that is:

...Which is morally worse?: a single person who murders one other person because they want to gain access to their money, or car, or whatever,...

...or...

...a large and organized group of people (a society) who systematically train assassins to murder thousands (millions?) of people in foreign lands because they want to gain access to their oil and other resources?

Other than scale, in what way are those two scenarios different from one another?

And, more importantly, which one is worse from a moral standpoint?

Anyway, as to how this relates to your OP,...

Thus when/if someone argues that murder is not immoral...

...an argument that is implicit in the picture I provided...

...we place ourselves into jeopardy through our statements...

...and especially our actions...

...in the sense that if we ourselves do not object to murder,...

...again, as is implicitly demonstrated in the above image...

...then we ourselves can be murdered without objection.

Right you are, Gary.

And thus, we Americans and Brits may not like it, but we are certainly in no position to "object" to being murdered in retaliation for the innumerable vicious and savage murders we've committed (either directly or indirectly) in our quest for global dominance.
_______