Comments on: Shooting to kill versus exploding to kill

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:45:00 +0000

"My example was made to poke holes in his intellectually loose statement."

It didn’t seem that loose to me. Whatever ‘rules’ we draw up, we can always add more conditions and clauses, leading to the state of affairs Wittgenstein describes – that the rules of society can be known and lived by – we do, after all – but they cannot be completely and without exception articulated.

By: dearieme

dearieme — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:33:00 +0000

athan, your point isn’t hard to understand (though I find it unpersuasive) but it’s not a point he made. I suspect that he was just wittering.

By: nathan

nathan — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:18:00 +0000

Perhaps he should have said "It is no better to be killed by your friends than by your enemies". Plenty of people attempt to morally vindicate both the war and the shooting by saying that those who died were killed unintentionally. If this is the guy’s basic point then it makes perfect sense.

dearieme – He means worse for society. Those who aren’t shot now face a greater risk of being shot if this act is legitimised, where as someone being shot by a criminal does not increase the risk to others because the act is condemned. Debatable yes but not particularly hard to understand.

By: Chris b

Chris b — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:42:00 +0000

There are other holes as well. It’s not worse for you personally either way once dead, even non-consenually, if you didn’t know who was trying to kill you. Once you were dead you wouldn’t know that the person succeded or not, as you’re dead and can’t think.

The only people it would be worse for are third parties, but even this doesn’t hold true as there are plenty of examples of the families of people who have died in car crashes saying "We’re devasted he died but at least he was with his friends" (who were the ones who caused the crash)

By: Chris b

Chris b — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:37:00 +0000

That being why I said "I get the point he’s trying to make…."
My example was made to poke holes in his intellectually loose statement

By: Lorna

Lorna — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:02:00 +0000

Chris B – presumably he’s talking about non-consensual killing, though. Euthanasia being basically suicide while borrowing someone else’s hands.

By: Chris b

Chris b — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:23:00 +0000

"All else being equal, it is worse to be killed by one's friends than by one's enemies, and worse to be killed by people in authority than by people not in authority."

If I was dying of a terminal and very paniful disease I'd much prefer to be killed by a friend who was a doctor.
What a bunch or arse this man speaks.....
I get the point he's trying to make it's just he makes it so appallingly badly..

By: dearieme

dearieme — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:08:00 +0000

"All else being equal" - what on earth can this mean in this context?
"It is worse to be killed by one's friends than by one's enemies" Worse for whom? Worse in what way?

Not much of an advert for Oxford clarity of thought or expression.

By: N.I.B.

N.I.B. — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:51:00 +0000

Erm, have you ever said ‘Sheep Shagger’ to a Welshman’s face? They usually stop short of murder…

By: David Duff

David Duff — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:07:00 +0000

Yes, at one stage when I was dealing in, what we call in the trade, ‘shrapnel’, I did use to advertise as ‘Duff Motors’. Got results, too!