Originally Posted by teague19

This was a pretty good point, because it is the most disscussed point when talking about changes in American laws or regulations. We have the bill of rights with the amendment to bear arms


However we do have a loop hole on our freedoms. "Your freedom ends where my freedom or safety begins."

This person kinda knows whats up

So im just curious where your thoughts lie on this?

Originally Posted by AikidoKP

It's pretty easy to find articles that disagree.

However, yes, gang related violence is often overlooked, with good cause. Gang violence would happen regardless of the availability of any type of weapons and will skew the results of a test. If there were no weapons in the country, there would be street brawls between gangs. The emphasis there is on violence rather than whether or not gun laws are being handled properly.




What would be a credible source to you?
Would their happiness be worth less because they value different things than you?


This, in my opinion is one of the big things I don't like about the american way of thinking. Owning a gun is not a right, it is a privilege. "Freedom" is (or ought to be) the freedom to do whatever you want with your own body, given that no harm comes to others.
Granted that, laws should be made to limit the potential harm, or limit things that are known to harm others. This seems to be a fair trade.

As the side note, America seems to be the biggest noise-maker for gun laws. Europe has decent laws for it.

This would come down to "Is it better to be free, or to be safe?" Then I suppose it depends on what kind of freedom you're willing to settle for. We are all willing to trade freedom for safety, it just amounts to how much.
Stricter gun laws is a small price to pay (If it's a price at all), for additional safety.


EDIT: To include Teague's message.


What that guy said. That's pretty much what I'm getting at.
The only thing is, I take a slightly different approach. As we cannot stop people from firing at whoever they want, we simply take away their ability to fire at whoever they want.
Just telling them not to harm others wont do it, so we have to step in and make it much, much harder for them to do that.

Originally Posted by AikidoKP

Well, I go with utilitarianism. Quick and easy overview for you who don't know in that link.

So I value utility (or the increase of pleasure and decrease of displeasure.)
Health, safety, freedom, and all the rest would fall under that.
Yes, I listed them in that order for a reason.

Health is first because without your health, your safety and freedom mean nothing.
Safety next because if you are not safe, being free is worthless.
Freedom is still up there because it's nice to be able to do things.

Originally Posted by Zoro

Health and safety fall pretty close together for me. Both are important, but both are able to be sacrificed for a "greater cause".

Originally Posted by Zoro

Mind extrapolating a bit? I know a bit about utilitarianism, but it has serious problems (as far as I've seen) when sentiment is involved. I'd like to hear what you have to say about that. Also Jeremy Bentham was a cool guy.

I'd have to say that personally I value function of a society over any personal gains. This is speaking logically, of course. I've never been thrust into a situation where I had to sacrifice the good of all over the good of my own, as I'm admittedly quite privileged. I got lucky with a great family and great school.

Therefore, I think the most important part of life is how I'm going to affect other people. I'm not smart enough or good enough at most things to leave a permanent mark on the world. Therefore, I'd like to boost multiple people's chances of creating something that'd benefit a lot of people. Perhaps idealistic, but I view it as increasing my chances.

Beyond that, I value freedom fairly highly. I enjoy having the ability to do almost anything, and knowing that my actions will dictate my happiness. It allows me to strive to be the best I can.

Health and safety fall pretty close together for me. Both are important, but both are able to be sacrificed for a "greater cause".

Originally Posted by Mystery800

a father sacrifices those two for children to have a brighter future that they did.
-----
granted most things today are safety proofed, health in factories and cities are sacrificed one way or another.

Originally Posted by AikidoKP

What do you mean by "most things today are safety proofed"?
I'm curious which parts you're talking about there.

Originally Posted by AikidoKP

Well, I follow a version closer to J.S. Mills utilitarianism than Bentham's.

Essentially what utilitarianism has you do is tally up a cost/benefit analysis of what an actions consequences would be. As it is a mostly consequentialist theory, it focuses on the outcomes rather than the intent. (ex: someone tries to kill a guy, but ends up saving a baby = generally a good action)

Originally Posted by AikidoKP

As for the sentiment part, for the most part it shouldn't play a role in your decisions. Now, obviously the end goal is bringing the greatest amount of pleasure to the greatest amount of people, but in Mills version, there are higher pleasures. Those higher pleasures are things like intellectual pleasures. Sentiment should not cloud your decision making, and if it moves you to increase suffering or lower the overall pleasure, then utilitarianism states that the sentiment should be ignored.

There are multiple ways to look at this though. One way (which I'm leaning towards in some ways) is that the actions that bring about the greatest amount of pleasure for you should (and will) benefit your community as well. It's sort of a behavior modification theory in that aspect.

Originally Posted by AikidoKP

You are constantly confronted with choices. The privileged people in society will often not be aware of these choices though. You have the ability to donate to those less fortunate, you can contribute to a better functionality, and plenty of other things.
The privilege we currently have work against this as we also have the pressure to keep the privilege.



That's essentially the route I'm taking.

Originally Posted by AikidoKP

Would you also be willing to sacrifice your freedom for the greater good?

I'm also hesitant about sacrificing health for the greater cause because of potential future good, so it depends on the situation.


Parents sacrifice for their children, that isn't really something exceptional. It's a survival drive in our species.

Originally Posted by Mystery800

well, at places of work, where parents provide for their children is less accident prone then it was many years ago. lots of things have been changed today for safety of the people. most of those things today are computer/device controlled, they cause less of the possibility to encounter occupational hazards. take the new car accident sensing technology, for example.

Originally Posted by Zoro

Yeah, but what if two people conflict on their opinions? That'd lead to strife, and that leads to bad thing
Also, again, if emotions come into something you probably won't always take the high road.

That's ideallistic. Ignoring sentiment goes against human nature. On the other hand, quite a few people have pulled it off. Buddhist monks, for example.

"The privileged people in society will often not be aware of these choices though." <--- that's one generalization. Extrapolate a bit? Why won't they be aware?

I shy away from sacrificing freedom for the greater good for the same reason you do with health. Personally I find that freedom will affect ability in the long run more than health will.

Also if parents sacrifice for their children, isn't that based off of sentiment? If it isn't something exceptional, doesn't that cripple utilitarianism?