On 08/05/2015 01:20 PM, Parks, Raymond wrote:
At the risk of being unpopular on this group, I would point out that many gun-owners have made the argument that none of their guns have spontaneously fired. Referring back to Ethics - an arm (whether or not it holds a sword) does not harm without voluntary movement by the person.
I don't think that's true at all. It's not the voluntary movement that concerns most. It's the involuntary movement that concerns most, especially liberals, because most liberals (I think) tend to give more weight to unintential or coincident circumstances than most conservatives. An analogous consideration is the (seemingly) popular conservative position that if you have succeeded at something (e.g. making money), it's because _you_ did it, not because you were lucky or fortunate. (The alternative position that God did it for you, or allowed you to do it is an interesting hedge.) Most liberals tend to place at least a little more weight on luck or circumstance when considering one's success. So, it's not spontanous firing the gun control people are worried about. It's not even the rational, intently intentional firing they're worried about. It's the accidental and/or rash, semi-intentional firings they're worried about. Hence the solution: remove the material cause. -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
