Logic and Ethics: Abstraction, Effect, and Purpose

[Tiassa]

On Logic and Ethics

This actually can get complicated, which is why it starts so simply:

• If Circumstance 1 exists …

― and it is acknowledged, a priori that some aspect thereof is problematic …
― and it is acknowledged that both Persons A and B are culpable for creating Circumstance 1, which is considered in some aspect problematic …​

… then Person A should have no obligation toward said Circumstance, with all obligation left to Person B and unknown prospective other parties, including potentially everybody else in society.​

I'm sorry, was that not simple? Let's try it this way:

• We both did this, therefore you are obliged to deal with the problem and leave me with no obligations or responsibilities whatsoever.​

Should we remove the first-person pretense of self-interest?

• It is clear that both A and B caused C; therefore, A has nothing to do with it, and anything anyone considers problematic about C becomes B's obligation.​

As an ethical proposition:

• Person A argues that because of shared responsibility with Person B in causing a given Circumstance, only Person B has any obligation toward said outcome, which in turn bears particular requisite demands, i.e., is problematic.​

Applied in potential:

• A distributed the accelerant; B laid the fuse; A and B together ignited the fuse, resulting in the Circumstance of a large fire. Person A offers the following defense against conviction and imprisonment for arson:

― 「We both did this, so you need to leave my culpability alone, take me off of that file, and leave my partner to deal with it.」​

And speaking of inflammatory, there is also the original form by which the argument comes to our consideration; therein, things get really, really complicated, because there are multiple applications, ranging into whaddaphuggery.

What is the logical value of discounting or ignoring a cause of an outcome? As a living, ethical proposition, what is its function and impact, and, thereby, within a societal condition, what is its value?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Thats simple.!!!

Its to chaotic for all the causes of an outcome to be known... so its most ethical to not place blame or to punish when certan outcomes occur... just have societal rules that we agree to live by an humainly restrict those who dont meet the agreed upon standards.!!!

 

[wegs]

If two willing participants commit a crime together, or separate (but plotted together to commit a crime) then both should be help accountable for the legal consequences of that crime. In strictly ethical matters that don't have anything to do with criminal activity, the same would still hold true, imo.

But, both parties have to be voluntary participants. Ignorance isn't a defense.

 

[Tiassa]

If two willing participants commit a crime together, or separate (but plotted together to commit a crime) then both should be help accountable for the legal consequences of that crime. In strictly ethical matters that don't have anything to do with criminal activity, the same would still hold true, imo.

This, I acknowledge, is my working presupposition. There can, of course, be variables altering my assessment in various ways, but therein lies a hook; those would be additional considerations that might alter the assessment overall, but do not necessarily change the presuppositions.

Furthermore, yes, it is, technically, possible to change the presuppositions, but that, also, becomes its own discussion of sorts, because the underlying assertion about disregarding one person's role really is as strikingly simple as I've offered it, in matters criminal and otherwise.

(It is not yet clear to me the value of mentioning that among the changes of presupposition, the most obvious routes would disrupt or complicate the argument from which I derived the appeal to some subtle innocence. Obviously, the harder I try to not focus on that part, the more I focus on that part; it's a Zen riddle, except it's not.)

• • •​

Thats simple.!!!

Its to chaotic for all the causes of an outcome to be known... so its most ethical to not place blame or to punish when certain outcomes occur... just have societal rules that we agree to live by an humainly restrict those who dont meet the agreed upon standards.!!!

To the one, sure.

To the other, some things are, should we consider the detail—e.g., arson example—rather quite evident; the deviations, as I noted above, either don't change the presuppositions or else they do. As such, the complications you consider either don't affect the presuppositions, but only the assessment thereunder, or else consider something else, entirely.

To the beeblebrox, though, and perhaps most practically: I'm an American, so to, "have societal rules that we agree to live by and [humanely] restrict those who don't meet the agreed upon standards", is something we've tried for quite a while, and still haven't really gotten the hang of, unless I just made a sick joke about lynching.

Interestingly, while I have repeatedly alluded to a different issue I'm trying to avoid, well, when we get around to that part, the problems with your prescription will be relevant all over again.

In the meantime, and to be particular: Especially when we consider the arson example, culpability is acknowledged; the causes of that particular outcome are reasonably presumed known. Introducing some element of mystery about how the circumstance in question came about requires either additional considerations or different presuppositions. We have the detail from the general description, "and it is acknowledged that both Persons A and B are culpable", as well as the particular example, "Person A argues that because of shared responsibility with Person B in causing a given Circumstance". Additionally, the phrase, "We both did this", which acknowledges one's role in causing or creating a particular circumstance, occurs both in general abstraction and particular expression.

• • •​

General note: Part of the reason this question fascinates me, so, is that I have encountered a real-world example, and it confuses the hell out of me because it is so blatant; there is also, though, the idea of how complicated this can get according to its application. I think there's one more step and then we're all nicely set to fall into a ditch.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

… then Person A should have no obligation toward said Circumstance, with all obligation left to Person B and unknown prospective other parties, including potentially everybody else in society.

i get that bit

• We both did this, therefore you are obliged to deal with the problem and leave me with no obligations or responsibilities whatsoever.

i get that bit, it is a cornerstone of modern civilized society laws of informed consent.

Should we remove the first-person pretense of self-interest?

ah... in walks the ambulance chasing lawyer of American culture.

As an ethical proposition:

• Person A argues that because of shared responsibility with Person B in causing a given Circumstance, only Person B has any obligation toward said outcome, which in turn bears particular requisite demands, i.e., is problematic.

i get that bit. it is used by violent offenders to try and justify them attacking people by using the "i was incited to violently attack them because they looked at me".

Applied in potential:

• A distributed the accelerant; B laid the fuse;

morose American culture where a separate law is made up to try and shift blame to the person who laid the fuse simply to allow money to be profited from by those corporate entities trying to make profit from a human tragedy.
unfortunately the bi-partisan political structure has fueled this type of moral bastardization of legal imputes to force a cumbersome process of specifics into the court room and enable shopping lists of 100's of years of prison sentencing to take place which serves absolutely no use once past the life span of the prisoner and yet takes up vast amounts of resources that would be better spent on the victims and familys of the victims.

but ... that's american for ya

this can be seen in many domestic abuse scenarios

― 「We both did this, so you need to leave my culpability alone, take me off of that file, and leave my partner to deal with it.」

more soo when the children are involved with both parents continuing to engage in drug addiction and negligent parenting.
the basis of the family is unhealthy and dangerous to all partys and is a psychological on going damage to the children.
it is EXTREMELY common in all countrys and cultures in varying types and severity.

i will come back a little later and respond to your question

What is the logical value of discounting or ignoring a cause of an outcome? As a living, ethical proposition, what is its function and impact, and, thereby, within a societal condition, what is its value?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

What is the logical value of discounting or ignoring a cause of an outcome? As a living, ethical proposition, what is its function and impact, and, thereby, within a societal condition, what is its value?

Assumin that A an B was both simular type people... age... iq... etc... it has no positive value.!!!

On pins an needles watin for you'r "real life example".!!!

 

[wegs]

This, I acknowledge, is my working presupposition. There can, of course, be variables altering my assessment in various ways, but therein lies a hook; those would be additional considerations that might alter the assessment overall, but do not necessarily change the presuppositions.

Furthermore, yes, it is, technically, possible to change the presuppositions, but that, also, becomes its own discussion of sorts, because the underlying assertion about disregarding one person's role really is as strikingly simple as I've offered it, in matters criminal and otherwise.

(It is not yet clear to me the value of mentioning that among the changes of presupposition, the most obvious routes would disrupt or complicate the argument from which I derived the appeal to some subtle innocence. Obviously, the harder I try to not focus on that part, the more I focus on that part; it's a Zen riddle, except it's not.

​

​

Two years ago, I was requested for jury duty, and while I wasn't selected, I had the opportunity to hear the particulars of a court case. Basically, in a nutshell, there were two brothers, both being charged (at the same time, which I thought was interesting) for home invasion and attempted murder. The younger brother claimed that he didn't know that his older brother was planning to murder anyone. He thought that they were going to burglarize a home in the area, and be done with it. Well, I wasn't selected to be a part of that jury, but I read the verdict online, a few weeks later.

Apparently, even if you are unaware of someone's intent to commit additional crimes during an initially planned crime that you are involved in, you are both equally accountable for ALL crimes that are carried out. So, even if the younger brother in that scenario genuinely had no earthly idea that his brother was planning to murder the homeowner during the (planned) home invasion he still is on the hook, because he was part and parcel to the burglary. I thought that was fascinating!
So, they both went down for home invasion and attempted murder.

Of course, every state has varied laws, but that case sprung to mind upon reading your OP.

 

[Seattle]

Two years ago, I was requested for jury duty, and while I wasn't selected, I had the opportunity to hear the particulars of a court case. Basically, in a nutshell, there were two brothers, both being charged (at the same time, which I thought was interesting) for home invasion and attempted murder. The younger brother claimed that he didn't know that his older brother was planning to murder anyone. He thought that they were going to burglarize a home in the area, and be done with it. Well, I wasn't selected to be a part of that jury, but I read the verdict online, a few weeks later.

Apparently, even if you are unaware of someone's intent to commit additional crimes during an initially planned crime that you are involved in, you are both equally accountable for ALL crimes that are carried out. So, even if the younger brother in that scenario genuinely had no earthly idea that his brother was planning to murder the homeowner during the (planned) home invasion he still is on the hook, because he was part and parcel to the burglary. I thought that was fascinating!
So, they both went down for home invasion and attempted murder.

Of course, every state has varied laws, but that case sprung to mind upon reading your OP.

That would be the felony-murder rule or a similar variant. If you rob a bank and a cop shoots toward you, misses but kills a bank teller, you will be charged with murder, in addition to bank robbery.

 

[Michael 345]

That would be the felony-murder rule or a similar variant. If you rob a bank and a cop shoots toward you, misses but kills a bank teller, you will be charged with murder, in addition to bank robbery.

As it should be

 

[Seattle]

As it should be

Of course. There are conspiracy rules as well. If one person does something illegal, you all are charged with doing something illegal if you are part of the conspiracy.

 

[wegs]

That would be the felony-murder rule or a similar variant. If you rob a bank and a cop shoots toward you, misses but kills a bank teller, you will be charged with murder, in addition to bank robbery.

I've never heard of this law. That's something! But, if you weren't there committing a crime in the first place......

 

[Seattle]

On Logic and Ethics

This actually can get complicated, which is why it starts so simply:

• If Circumstance 1 exists …

― and it is acknowledged, a priori that some aspect thereof is problematic …
― and it is acknowledged that both Persons A and B are culpable for creating Circumstance 1, which is considered in some aspect problematic …​

… then Person A should have no obligation toward said Circumstance, with all obligation left to Person B and unknown prospective other parties, including potentially everybody else in society.​

I'm sorry, was that not simple? Let's try it this way:

• We both did this, therefore you are obliged to deal with the problem and leave me with no obligations or responsibilities whatsoever.​

Should we remove the first-person pretense of self-interest?

• It is clear that both A and B caused C; therefore, A has nothing to do with it, and anything anyone considers problematic about C becomes B's obligation.​

As an ethical proposition:

• Person A argues that because of shared responsibility with Person B in causing a given Circumstance, only Person B has any obligation toward said outcome, which in turn bears particular requisite demands, i.e., is problematic.​

Applied in potential:

• A distributed the accelerant; B laid the fuse; A and B together ignited the fuse, resulting in the Circumstance of a large fire. Person A offers the following defense against conviction and imprisonment for arson:

― 「We both did this, so you need to leave my culpability alone, take me off of that file, and leave my partner to deal with it.」​

And speaking of inflammatory, there is also the original form by which the argument comes to our consideration; therein, things get really, really complicated, because there are multiple applications, ranging into whaddaphuggery.

What is the logical value of discounting or ignoring a cause of an outcome? As a living, ethical proposition, what is its function and impact, and, thereby, within a societal condition, what is its value?

Are you incapable of just directly asking your question? Are you talking about plea bargaining where two people are accused to some act but one is let off the hook if he cooperates in convicting the other party?

 

[Seattle]

I've never heard of this law. That's something! But, if you weren't there committing a crime in the first place......

There is no such law if you aren't committing a crime in the first place but if you were there committing one crime and another occurred you are still guilty before, were it not for the original crime there would be no opportunity for the second crime.

You're never heard of that law because you've probably never heard of most laws unless you've studied the law in one form or another or had the occasion to be involved in some way.

 

[wegs]

There is no such law if you aren't committing a crime in the first place but if you were there committing one crime and another occurred you are still guilty before, were it not for the original crime there would be no opportunity for the second crime.

I know, that's why I stated if you're not committing any crime to begin with....

You're never heard of that law because you've probably never heard of most laws unless you've studied the law in one form or another or had the occasion to be involved in some way.

Yes, I live in a bubble.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

arson example—rather quite evident; the deviations, as I noted above, either don't change the presuppositions or else they do.

e.g
the usa bush fires started by people
should they get charged with terrorism ?

they may claim defense that they had no intention to cause terror, but as wegs mentions, ...'ignorance of the terror created'
surely they should not be found not guilty of the terror created... ?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Two years ago, I was requested for jury duty, and while I wasn't selected,

A few years ago i showed up for jury duty an was questoned by the lawyers but was not chosen for the jury... was you questoned by the lawyers an then rejected.???

 

[Tiassa]

Are you incapable of just directly asking your question?

We're actually not even to it, yet. This is just the introduction.

Even still—

• What is the logical value of discounting or ignoring a cause of an outcome? As a living, ethical proposition, what is its function and impact, and, thereby, within a societal condition, what is its value? (#1↑)​

—there is that, for the moment.

And we should note, for the record, we got a reasonably straightforward answer in #3↑. Indeed, the response at #2↑, by comparison, is problematic for introducing extraneous complication; it's not that I don't see the point, but, rather, that it is a different one.

To wit ...:

• • •​

morose American culture where a separate law is made up to try and shift blame to the person who laid the fuse simply to allow money to be profited from by those corporate entities trying to make profit from a human tragedy.

I have a joke about Zen, that also works for Sufism, sort of, and has to do with the point that everyone makes too big a deal out of it. It is much like the idea that as long as you are trying to create silence, you are still creating the noise of trying to create silence.

Complications like you present are inevitable. Part of what makes the topic proposition so damn slippery is that it really is what it looks like. Laws do enter into it, but not quite so directly.

Oh, hey, try this: It feels extraneous to make the explicit point that I'm not referring to anything anywhere near anyone Trumping the Light Fantastic; this has nothing to do with repeated acknowledgment of guilt coupled with an explanation of why it's not a crime on this particular occasion.

But here is the tricky part: It really is, ultimately, so stupid as I have described. We need to accept that; largely, I'm giving time for people to come to terms with that while also watching the responses for hints of what I might be missing about the presentation. This whole thing goes awry, for instance, if we stop to consider too many complications, at least until we get to the big complication.

• • •​

General note: Certain information should be obvious when its moment arises; that is, some things are self-evident. For instance, I note complications; the mere fact of these complications, when we get to them, actually points us to what seems an obvious answer, a fairly straightforward if/then. For some reason, though, this gets tricky, and if one might wonder at the question itself, well, therein lies the trick. It's one of those questions where you really can get people to agree if you ask them generally, but as soon as you ask the specific, they scatter. We can even observe this expectation in responses wondering after the mysterious question itself.

I should thus forestall, or is it forewarn: It really is that simple; if the living example can alter the straightforward assessment, that is to the beholder.

Because it's also true, there really is a plot twist coming, and at first glance it will seem utterly stupid. And it's like a notion about progress requiring some manner of destination; marching us all down a road is what it is, but we really ought to be going somewhere, as such.

• • •​

Secondary consideration and inquiry: I don't think "gravity" is a proper analogy, but one part of the science works even for abstract rhetoric: It is true, gravity is not properly defined as "a force that holds you down". It is also true this fact does not mean gravity does not exist.

Does an invalid presupposition asserted by a stakeholder utterly invalidate a given larger proposition? That sixteen times sixteen does not actually equal two hundred eighty-nine does not mean a particular structure is not two hundred fifty-six feet tall. More directly, the uttering individual can be incorrect regardless of the subject matter.

And, yes, this might seem a very strangely basic note, but, yes, really.

 

[Seattle]

I know, that's why I stated if you're not committing any crime to begin with....



Yes, I live in a bubble.

Living in a bubble sounds cool. You should post more about that.

 

[wegs]

Living in a bubble sounds cool. You should post more about that.

Bubble life is quite bliss. For starters though, lecturing is frowned upon, so you'd probably be really frustrated, there.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Soul mates???... my bubble is sciency type stuff wit a double scoop of lollypops an rainbows... Ahhhhh