Violence is Wrong

This debate was most enjoyable. I will first address PRO's main rebuttal, and then close with a detailed, step-by-step summary of exactly what the trolley dilemma entailed. RebuttalFor his last round, PRO's main rebuttal is that "a being which is conscious is always also in action. .. A completely inactive being could not be alive," implying that there is no such thing as inaction for any living being, and that to be alive is to act in some form or another. From this PRO concludes that "human causality is directly or indirectly involved in all situations here discussed, so none are 'purely natural violence'. "PRO's main implication is that actions such as breathing, blood circulation, etc, all necessitate causal action by humans. I addressed this in round #2 - I will break it down in detail:1) None of these actions are conscious actions. We do not choose to breathe, to become hungry, or to circulate blood around our body. .. we are normally unconscious of these actions, and so they are all irrelevant to the issue of morality, which requires a conscious choice concomitant with action/inaction. 2) This is where the delineation between natural violence and human-to-human violence becomes so useful. The default position for these biological actions is naturally "ON", and are not caused by human means. These actions are also inherently violent in the natural sense - our stomachs and lungs perform chemical reactions to sustain our existences, without which we die. Therefore, such biological actions are part of the natural realm, i. e. #A. Once analyzed in such detail, PRO's point does not pass the common-sense test. Common sense would tell you that if you had the choice to fly to Japan or not fly to Japan, the former would constitute action and the latter inaction. It does not matter that you are breathing while NOT flying to Japan. .. that simply does not constitute what we would call human action. This is also why in the researchers' lab dilemma, the 10 researchers have to choose between non-violent behavior (i. e. no air to breathe) and human/human violence (crowbar). ConclusionPutting it all togetherThis has been an exhaustive study on the most basic aspects of human life, decision, and existence. I will now run a play-by-play of the trolley dilemma from round #2 with good ol' Bob as the quarterback to see how all of my rebuttals of PRO's various objections pass muster. Recall the trolley dilemma:[Bob is] walking near a trolley-car track when [Bob notices] five people tied to it in a row. The next instant, [Bob sees] a trolley hurtling toward them, out of control. A signal lever is within [Bob's] reach; if [he pulls] it, [he] can divert the runaway trolley down a side track, saving the five — but killing another person, who is tied to that spur. What [does Bob] do? Most people say [Bob] would pull the lever: Better that one person should die instead of five. "1) The morality of this situation will be determined by a utilitarian framework with a foundation in rational self-interest that, ceteris paribus, holds that each human life has an equal, positive value. PRO in his final round begrudgingly conceded that this framework is valid for this debate.2) There is a difference between natural (#A) and human/human violence (#B). Morality deals ONLY with human violence and not causality found in nature. Sometimes, by consciously and causally increasing #B, we achieve a dramatic decrease in #A. This is the central thesis of my position.3) Consciousness does not imply action - just being aware of the choice does not mean you have a moral decision to make. You must ALSO have the ability to act or not act. This refutes PRO's main round #3 contention.4) Human life itself has a naturally violent component (#A), and also a violent component derived from conscious choice (#B). We are only concerned with the latter. We are not concerned with Bob's breathing and etc. If Bob does not pull the lever, he is not performing a human action, and thus does not cause human/human violence. ---Let's now analyze the steps in a utilitarian framework: A) IF BOB IS NOT THERE:5 people die, one person livesB) IF BOB IS THERE AND UNAWARE:[same]C) IF BOB IS THERE, AWARE, BUT DOES NOT HAVE A CHOICE TO MAKE:[same]D) IF BOB IS THERE, AWARE, AND HAS A CONSCIOUS CHOICE TO MAKE:D1) BOB CHOOSES NOT TO ACT[same]D2) BOB CHOOSES TO ACT5 people live, one person dies. Thus, Scenario D2 results in most lives saved, and is the moral decision. ---This breakdown shows applies the various arguments from the debate:Scenario A does not involve Bob at all, and so the violence is wholly attributed to nature. (#A)Scenario B involves Bob's consciousness, but not awareness of a choice, which leads to the same as Scenario A. (#A)Scenario C involves not only Bob's consciousness, but also his consciousness of the situation and of a choice, but he cannot act upon the choice. Still #A. Bob is STILL not morally culpable for this scenario. Only in Scenario D do we see an actual moral dilemma that compels Bob to make a conscious choice. The moral choice is to increase human/human violence (#B), and so we see that ONLY in Scenario D do we see a choice that we would actually call "violent" in a moral sense. In this specific scenario, this violence is moral. Non-violence, i. e. non-action, is immoral. This negates the resolution. If instead you go by PRO's framework, then Gandhi, MLK, and Jesus Christ were all "violent resisters" by virtue of their breathing alone, as per PRO: "human causality is directly or indirectly involved in all situations here discussed, so none are 'purely natural violence'. " PRO's position doesn't pass the common sense test. I thank PRO again for an exhaustive study of this resolution. If all this went over your head, just remember: Larry's a stooge, and Bob's your uncle. =)