Sam Harris

ligh+bringer - 13 November 2007 05:57 AM

I wasn’t pointing fingers at you, but 1/6 indicates to me that something is amiss.

I would think that six respondents hardly a consensus makes. Keep in mind that there are 1700+ registered members here, so out of the few dozen regular posters, only a handful might elect to explore the Philosophy subforum during any given week, if ever, and only some of those will find this particular topic compelling enough to join in on.

Considering all that, there’s no sound basis for concluding that you’re The Lone Confronter on the forum, or that those who think they would tend to avoid confrontation would actually do so, when put to the test.

ligh+bringer - 13 November 2007 05:57 AM

This is still “related to whether one is more prone to be confrontational or not,” but I think the point Sam and I are trying to make is that confrontation is the more moral choice, whenever possible.

Seems to me that those last words—whenever possible—are what it ultimately comes down to. You might only have a matter of seconds to choose your course of action, while juggling tremendous stresses. . . so the potential variables to be sorted through in that moment are not insignificant, and almost impossible to predict with certainty.

I wouldn’t have said what I said if I didn’t sense a nationwide trend.  1/6 (now 2 outa 7 ) is just another indicator to me.

Mia - 14 November 2007 01:28 AM

whenever possible

I have to hedge my bets, a little.  Complete certianty is not a worthy goal.

I guess there’s a possible transgression, cuz whenever I’m deceived, I’m pretty f’kin’ pi$$ed off.

- Are you still entitled to that indignation if you’re a pimp trying to bully a woman? Didn’t you forfeit your expectation of normal ethical treatment the moment you transgressed on the woman’s rights?

If deception is ever right, it necessitates breaking the golden rule.  But there are a lot of things that necessitate that.

- If you’re in a situation where someone else is already breaking the golden rule, it becomes inapplicable. The best you can hope for at that point is the judgment not to go overboard when you have to toss out the golden rule, such as lethal confrontation (shooting the pimps might be overdoing it).

Given the only tools at his disposal, in a strange city, don’t you think it was the BEST option?

What would YOU have done?

davelook - 14 November 2007 06:02 AM

Are you still entitled to that indignation if you’re a pimp trying to bully a woman? Didn’t you forfeit your expectation of normal ethical treatment the moment you transgressed on the woman’s rights?

I suppose so, but I made the case that Sam might not have really been lying in that case, and certainly wasn’t out to deceive.

davelook - 14 November 2007 06:02 AM

Given the only tools at his disposal, in a strange city, don’t you think it was the BEST option?

What would YOU have done?

Well, Sam didn’t think it was the best option.  I guess we’ll never know for sure.

I would have stared at them.  At some point it would become clear how high they would be willing to escalate in order to continue with their unethical behavior.  If that means I gotta run, I run.  But just taking them out of their comfort zone and sending a clear message I’m sure would fluster them – and get them to think about their actions later.  This may not release the woman as easily, but Sam surmised that wasn’t the point.  The point should be to oppose them.

You “would have stared at them”?
and if that didn’t work you’d run?
What happened to ligh+bringer the confronter?

You’re right, that was Sam’s point…so why is no one confronting Ahmedinnahjacket? Whom do we confront to get a person in position to confront him, to confront him? ...or does this type of confrontation always lead to war?
Seems Musharraf and Bhutto are in ethcal conundrums of this sort…
wonder what they’ll do.

“Don’t start a battle you cannot win”
—Kasparov