in the human art of rationality there’s a flat law against meeting arguments with violence, anywhere in the human world
“No. You’re confusing rationality with your own received ethical value system. Violence is both an appropriate and frequently necessary response to all sorts of arguments.”
I want to note that Buzz Aldrin, the second man to set foot on the moon, famously encountered a man who denied that humans have ever gone to the moon but that the videos of Buzz on the moon were filmed in arizona. Buzz’s response when the man presented his arguments was to sock him in the jaw.
The science fiction writer John Barnes, who collaborated with Aldrin on a couple of science fiction novels, has since written several novels in which the appealing protagonist argues that the only appropriate response to some arguments is a good swift sock in the jaw. His protagonists do so, with good results.
Millions of impressionable young science fiction readers are influenced by these novels.
If you met John Barnes and he argued that he’s doing the right thing, would it be appropriate to sock him in the jaw?
Barnes is 53 years old but has been doing martial arts for something like 30 years. Would that influence your choice?
Should you let the moral value of initiating violence depend on whether or not you win?
If it’s right to physically attack somebody who disagrees with you provided you win but wrong when you lose, what about when it’s a ten year old girl who makes an argument you can’t answer except with violence?
I realize that this comment has been up for a long time, but just in defense of Buzz Aldrin: the punch was less in response to the man claiming that he was wrong, and more in response to the man being verbally abusive (don’t believe everything you hear, search on Google for Buzz Aldrin Punch and you can get a video for yourselves.) There’s a difference between violence being the appropriate response to reasoned argument and violence being the appropriate response to abuse/someone else’s violence/etc.
in the human art of rationality there’s a flat law against meeting arguments with violence, anywhere in the human world
“No. You’re confusing rationality with your own received ethical value system. Violence is both an appropriate and frequently necessary response to all sorts of arguments.”
I want to note that Buzz Aldrin, the second man to set foot on the moon, famously encountered a man who denied that humans have ever gone to the moon but that the videos of Buzz on the moon were filmed in arizona. Buzz’s response when the man presented his arguments was to sock him in the jaw.
The science fiction writer John Barnes, who collaborated with Aldrin on a couple of science fiction novels, has since written several novels in which the appealing protagonist argues that the only appropriate response to some arguments is a good swift sock in the jaw. His protagonists do so, with good results.
Millions of impressionable young science fiction readers are influenced by these novels.
If you met John Barnes and he argued that he’s doing the right thing, would it be appropriate to sock him in the jaw?
Barnes is 53 years old but has been doing martial arts for something like 30 years. Would that influence your choice?
Should you let the moral value of initiating violence depend on whether or not you win?
If it’s right to physically attack somebody who disagrees with you provided you win but wrong when you lose, what about when it’s a ten year old girl who makes an argument you can’t answer except with violence?
I realize that this comment has been up for a long time, but just in defense of Buzz Aldrin: the punch was less in response to the man claiming that he was wrong, and more in response to the man being verbally abusive (don’t believe everything you hear, search on Google for Buzz Aldrin Punch and you can get a video for yourselves.) There’s a difference between violence being the appropriate response to reasoned argument and violence being the appropriate response to abuse/someone else’s violence/etc.