Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Individual responsible for self-defense?  (Was Re: Rape)
Message-ID: <1104@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 19:17:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.1104
Posted: Wed Oct  1 19:17:35 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 10:15:13 EDT
References: <1904@mtgzy.UUCP> <8608050927.AA09486@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 64
Xref: watmath soc.women:200 soc.singles:296

> In article <169@omssw1.UUCP> hays@omssw1.UUCP (Kirk Hays) writes:
> >	Societies that require individuals to be responsible for their
> >	own defense have less violence and less crime than societies
> >	(like ours) that strip the individual of these abilities.
> >
> >Remember, kiddies, the cops can't be everywhere! 8-{)}
> 
> Don't usually get into these discussions, but this requires a second
> thought:
> 
>[text deleted]
> P1-> societies that require individuals to be resp. have less violence
> 
> P2-> (contrapositive) societies that strip the individual of the
> ability to defend themselves are more violent
> 
> P3-> (missing premise) individuals should take responsibility for their
>      own self-defense even if their society prohibits this.
> 
> C'n-> individuals who do not take responsibility for their own self-defense
>       are asking for violence.
> 
> As  far as I can see, your argument falls apart without P3, which I think
> is a  bit antisocial (literally).  You slip by  without it only by confusing
> an individual with their society.  Please tell me (if possible, in
> well-reasoned logic) where my analysis is incorrect.
> 

By definition, P3 is antisocial.  But does a society's values mean anything
if the right to self-defense is denied?  Do the values of a society that
encourages genocide deserve any respect?  In brief, the issue boils down
to the single question, "Are human rights absolute, or dependent on the
society?"  

If they are absolute, then the right of the individual takes precedence
over the values of the society.  If human rights are not absolute, what
basis (other than "might makes right") do you have for opposition to
majoritarian oppression?

> My own thoughts:  One of the definitions of evil is " a heirarchically
> organized system in which position in the heirarchy is determined by
> power."  Cf.  Dungeons and Dragons.  For examples, read Tolkien, etc.
> 

There are many other definitions of evil.  The one above is a tremendously
narrow definition of evil leaving out such actions as serial killers,
racism, and a host of other evils.

> How far is "everyone is responsible for their own defense" from
> this definition?  Admittedly, in such societies, there may be less
> violence.  But who wants to live that way?
> 

Pretty far, at least in a society where mechanical leverage can equalize
differences of physical strength.

> (The above is not guaranteed to be bug-free logic.  Please feel free
> to debug.)
> 
> -Steve Rapaport,  University of Waterloo,  !watmath!watlion!sjrapaport

You asked for it.

Clayton E. Cramer