I think Ed is tired of me. Actually, I don't just think he is, I know he is. I'm going to try to respond again, but I'll make it as direct to the key points as I can. Also, since I'd like to stop fanning the flames (in the hope that what I'm saying will actually be thought about), this will be my only post to wikipedia-l today.
Ed Poor wrote:
...as if you had no idea that it was the judgment of wrongness of the act that justified force to prevent it...
I'm taking the liberty to restate how I understand your position.
1: gang smashing windows -> wrongful act 2: wrongful act -> force justification 3: force justification -> calling police
you insinuate that I hold the opposite opinion: that the *power* to enforce a standard of right and wrong somehow *defines* that standard.
I didn't intend to make an insinuation regarding your opinions. What I mean to do is point out that you are relying upon your personal sense of right and wrong.
Put yourself in the shoes of the gang after the police arrive. Their personal sense of right and wrong could very well lead to this line of reasoning.
1: police interference -> wrongful act 2: wrongful act -> force justification 3: force justification -> capture of police
The question before us, as I see it, is what makes Ed's personal sense of right and wrong any superior to the gang's personal sense of right and wrong. Ed was kind enough to share with us one possible "set of absolutes":
Here are the moral absolutes I believe in:
It is evil to harm another person for my own benefit.
It is good to benefit another person.
This is a perfectly reasonable set of core beliefs, but that doesn't mean that all people have to share these same beliefs. Nor is it clear that all people who did share these beliefs would apply them the same way.
TMC, you sound like a relativist. You seem to claim, I may do whatever I wish and no one has a right to restrain me.
Your pronouns confuse me, are you saying that Ed can do whatever he pleases, or are you saying that Cock can do whatever he pleases? The end result is the same either way, since I see your actions and my actions as morally equal. Just so there is no doubt, here is what I am saying:
* Ed can do whatever he likes, and no one has the right to restrain him.
* Cock can do whatever he likes, and no one has the right to restrain him.
* Despite the fact that he has no right, Ed will act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
* Despite the fact that he has no right, Cock will act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.
Paraphrasing a private email I had with another wikipedian, if the gang is in front of my house smashing my car window then I am going to go outside and use force to stop them. What I'm not going to do is pretend that I'm morally superior to them in any way, or that I had some "right" to stop them. I'm simply using my ability to project force to enforce my will over them.
...unless you're too chicken (or just being cocky).
Cool! Two puns for the price of one.
--Cock
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2