Utilitarian Theory and the gun control mindset

[MTC]

Inspired by another thread.

Placed here instead of Gen Pol to solicit your opinions and comments on its implications, specifically where it might have direct bearing on the gun control mindset.

 

[figley]

You're the one getting the grade. Do your own research. INGO isn't here to write your paper for you.

(expletives removed to protect the guilty and the innocent)

 

[rimfire_crazed]

...or not.

 

[MTC]

You're the one getting the grade. Do your own research. INGO isn't here to write your paper for you.

(expletives removed to protect the guilty and the innocent)

What? No. Not enrolled in any academic programs or writing any papers. Expletives? Not sure what about the soliciting of comments on the subject warrants that, although the wording in the OP can be changed if somehow deemed offensive. Sure thought it was in as neutral and open-ended a fashion as possible. What was objectionable?

 

[VikingWarlord]

What was objectionable?

Probably the fact that it pretty much reads exactly like an essay question from a social sciences professor.

 

[MTC]

Probably the fact that it pretty much reads exactly like an essay question from a social sciences professor.

Very well, then. Give me a few minutes to fix it. If it is still unacceptable, might have to trash it. Wasn't that important anyway.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Eh... why don't you provide your thoughts on the subject? It'll likely spark more conversation than asking someone else to just come up with their own take.

 

[downzero]

Probably the fact that it pretty much reads exactly like an essay question from a social sciences professor.

Philosophy is not a "social science."

An effective answer to this question would probably involve statistics. The probability of being shot and killed in your lifetime is extremely small. In the world of public policy problems, gun crime, while tragic, is extraordinarily small compared to, for example, trying to make cars safer in accidents, or trying to eliminate car accidents, or a laundry list of permanently-disfiguring workplace injuries that ought to be prevented if possible.

In a world of scarce resources, firearm crime is so low that even if guns could be completely banned, and even if there were no secondary consequences (you know, like even if another Stalin didn't come around and start exterminating people), that it's likely that there'd be little gain to society as a whole from banning them. And of course this is an unreasonable assumption because no matter what evil guns do, they are used to preserve life, for sport, and for the defense of a free republic as we know it, whether from our own government or from foreign invaders.

I'm not sure if you're trying to ask the question from a pure philosophical standpoint or from a public policy perspective, but firearms used for lawful purposes have immense social value.

I'm not sure utilitarian theory is the best way to answer this question anyway, because IF you are a victim of a crime in progress and are able to defend yourself, it wouldn't matter to you how rare that possibility was. Your life is priceless to you, and no amount of social value would be sufficient to tell you otherwise after you'd just saved your life. In some sense, society "lost" a life by you shooting the other person (assuming they died), but if you successfully defended yourself against a lethal threat, I'm not so sure that the social costs and social benefits of firearms ownership would be in the forefront of your mind. But, I'm not you.

 

[VikingWarlord]

Philosophy is not a "social science."

Having a minor in Philosophy with my second degree, I never would have known that.

Given the timestamp of your response, I'm guessing you didn't see the original question. The post was about the application of the theory from a sociological perspective. Sociology IS a social science.

 

[downzero]

Having a minor in Philosophy with my second degree, I never would have known that.

Given the timestamp of your response, I'm guessing you didn't see the original question. The post was about the application of the theory from a sociological perspective. Sociology IS a social science.

Perhaps. Sociology is a complicated pseudo-social science.

I think it'd be kinda funny if someone seriously took INGO advice on writing a college essay. In fact, it'd be hilarious to write an essay on gun control and its failings at all, given the graders.

I tried it in high school, and it didn't go over too well. I wonder why.

 

[MTC]

Strange. Asked the same question toward the end of a previous thread, and one member replied with his concise take on it. Judging by the tone (if tone can be inferred at all from typed words) he took no offense at all (and it's a good thing - 'cause none was intended), and responded in a conversational manner as was hoped for, though no one is ever obligated to respond to any topic, especially one they are not interested in.

Eh... why don't you provide your thoughts on the subject? It'll likely spark more conversation than asking someone else to just come up with their own take.

Yes, you're quite right. Tried to take a different approach, thinking it more "fair" or neutral to ask others instead of making assertions on topics that were glossed over many years ago and only recently revisited, prompted by current events, threads, and/or various articles, such as (but not limited to) this one.

Being neither student nor professor, where then to start. OK, just a few to begin.

In short, it would go in the "what makes 'em tick" category. More in the realm of political philosophy, rather than sociology, though there can be some overlap. It seems that some type of - or variation of - utilitarian theory, when adopted as a belief system, is at work, or might explain how someone would view rights differently than, for example, another who considered them inherent. So much differently that the very concept of a right itself would be altered in such a way as to enable one to more easily rationalize and advocate for the abrogation of that right, both for himself and others, (and specifically in the example of gun control legislation) if and when deemed in the interest of "public safety" or "the common good".

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Is "Utilitarian Theory" something like "if your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail?"

 

[MTC]

Is "Utilitarian Theory" something like "if your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail?"

Maybe something like that, or a variation of it as it is applied. Heard many of what could be called utilitarian arguments in private conversations.

One that stands out foremost in memory happened at work during the late '90s, before the media frenzy over the Columbine murders, yet a few days after one of the other highly-publicized, sensationalized multiple homicides in one of the gun-free school zones.

(His comments in red and mine in black)
Walked into the break area for lunch, and noticed only one co-worker sitting quietly reading the local birdcage liner. Barely got seated with my sandwich when he suddenly slammed the paper down on the table and shouted angrily, "Man, that's bull****!"

"What. What's got you so upset?" (I glanced down quickly at the paper and noticed it was the editorial page with a lengthy article/rant by one of the "syndicated columnists" from one of the large urban cesspools.)

"The NRA says guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's bull****! If he hadn't had those guns, he wouldn't have been able to kill all those people! Now, we need to BAN ALL the GUNS!"

(I was taken aback for a few seconds by his almost hysterical tone, his reddened, contorted face, and in disbelief that this individual who had previously mentioned being a former Marine helicopter maintenance chief could allow his emotions and critical thinking skills to be manipulated by a "journalist".)
"Do you understand what you're saying? Have you thought it all the way through? Do you understand that to make something like that work, you'll have to run over the 4th [Amendment] to complete the destruction of the 2nd [Amendment], which has already been crippled by legislative infringements?"

"I don't care! They need to ban all guns!"

"So what you're saying is that if you had your way, you'd have a Swat team kick in my door, and take my stuff. Oh, and kill me if I resist."

(He shrugged slightly with a smug sneer):
"Whatever. Whatever it takes."

 

[Bill of Rights]

Maybe something like that, or a variation of it as it is applied. Heard many of what could be called utilitarian arguments in private conversations.

One that stands out foremost in memory happened at work during the late '90s, before the media frenzy over the Columbine murders, yet a few days after one of the other highly-publicized, sensationalized multiple homicides in one of the gun-free school zones.

(His comments in red and mine in black)
Walked into the break area for lunch, and noticed only one co-worker sitting quietly reading the local birdcage liner. Barely got seated with my sandwich when he suddenly slammed the paper down on the table and shouted angrily, "Man, that's bull****!"

"What. What's got you so upset?" (I glanced down quickly at the paper and noticed it was the editorial page with a lengthy article/rant by one of the "syndicated columnists" from one of the large urban cesspools.)

"The NRA says guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's bull****! If he hadn't had those guns, he wouldn't have been able to kill all those people! Now, we need to BAN ALL the GUNS!"

(I was taken aback for a few seconds by his almost hysterical tone, his reddened, contorted face, and in disbelief that this individual who had previously mentioned being a former Marine helicopter maintenance chief could allow his emotions and critical thinking skills to be manipulated by a "journalist".)
"Do you understand what you're saying? Have you thought it all the way through? Do you understand that to make something like that work, you'll have to run over the 4th [Amendment] to complete the destruction of the 2nd [Amendment], which has already been crippled by legislative infringements?"

"I don't care! They need to ban all guns!"

"So what you're saying is that if you had your way, you'd have a Swat team kick in my door, and take my stuff. Oh, and kill me if I resist."

(He shrugged slightly with a smug sneer):
"Whatever. Whatever it takes."

I believe you have identified a clear and present danger, as well as an enemy of the latter (of foreign and domestic) variety.

What's that word for someone who takes a solemn oath before God and then seeks out ways to violate that oath? (No, I don't mean "politician", though that word often fits the question.)

Oh. Oh yes... that's right. The word is "quisling".

Me, I'm thinking I just would have looked at him and said, "When the criminals can be proven to have given theirs up, I might consider it. Until then, you're entitled to your opinion."

If he persisted, I simply would have stood and left, with the comment that we obviously had nothing further to discuss. If his oath before God means nothing to him, his words to you have even less value.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MTC]

Me, I'm thinking I just would have looked at him and said, "When the criminals can be proven to have given theirs up, I might consider it. Until then, you're entitled to your opinion."

If he persisted, I simply would have stood and left, with the comment that we obviously had nothing further to discuss. If his oath before God means nothing to him, his words to you have even less value.

Agree, and yes, the conversation was definitely over. Hypothetical responses may vary, and can be handled as each individual sees fit for the circumstances.

Not to be argumentative, rather to expand on that: I don't use the sample one you offered, because I don't believe our rights are to ever be subject to a cost/benefit "to society" analysis. Whether the "crime rate" be 100% or 0% is irrelevant to our right to keep and bear arms.

My rights, your rights, our rights are not contingent upon the criminal actions of others -- or the latest crime statistics.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Agree, and yes, the conversation was definitely over. Hypothetical responses may vary, and can be handled as each individual sees fit for the circumstances.

Not to be argumentative, rather to expand on that: I don't use the sample one you offered, because I don't believe our rights are to ever be subject to a cost/benefit "to society" analysis. Whether the "crime rate" be 100% or 0% is irrelevant to our right to keep and bear arms.

My rights, your rights, our rights are not contingent upon the criminal actions of others -- or the latest crime statistics.

Completely true. I didn't say I'd support any attempt to change rights. I said I might consider giving them up myself.

I'd expect this to take the form of <pause> "OK, I've considered it. I'm going to the range. You can either come with me or go pound sand."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MTC]

Completely true. I didn't say I'd support any attempt to change rights. I said I might consider giving them up myself.

And I didn't say that you said that you'd support - oh, nevermind.
It is understood you were just giving one sample response.

The point of that post was to expand further and add more options for others in the form of position statements, though they can respond in those situations however they choose. Yet for me, personally, I'm not givin' mine up willingly - other than a possible voluntary sale - even if everyone else on the face of the earth gave up theirs.

(And I'll not have my BoR give his up either, unless for some reason he just wants to.)