Cruel Logic

[phoenix_fire]

A friend showed me this today:

YouTube - Cruel Logic

I obviously don't agree with the methods, but what do you guys think about the argument raised?

[Jack]

It wasn't really developed very far. But it did raise a few interesting points. They'd need to define the parameters of their debate better. At one point the professor starts to say that if killing had no boundaries, humanity wouldn't survive and the killer said that he would. They're both correct, but they're arguing on different levels.

[Clarence]

they're both right.

When the man strapped to the chair started thrashing violently..

[rez]

Quote by: Isherwood It wasn't really developed very far. But it did raise a few interesting points. They'd need to define the parameters of their debate better. At one point the professor starts to say that if killing had no boundaries, humanity wouldn't survive and the killer said that he would. They're both correct, but they're arguing on different levels.

They may both be correct, but the killer was the one dodging the assertion. His rebuttal was off topic, therefore, the killer is wrong.

The thesis seemed to be that humans are genetically determined to do certain things. The killer was rationalizing his motives by placing the blame on his genes.

The killer also pointed out that abnormal behavior has to do with statistical averages, thus he implies that the majority does not rule. The killer in this case has no problem with hurting his status within society.

What seems to be implied in this skit is that when people start explaining things with science and math one does not have to take responsibility for their own actions. This is just another product of shallow thinking and boring philosophy.

[Jack]

I agree that no outside force, be it religion, logic or science, should be able to be used as an excuse for relinquishing your own responsibility for your own life.

The genetic debate I am not knowledgeable enough about to add much of substance.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Isherwood It wasn't really developed very far. But it did raise a few interesting points. They'd need to define the parameters of their debate better. At one point the professor starts to say that if killing had no boundaries, humanity wouldn't survive and the killer said that he would. They're both correct, but they're arguing on different levels.

Well, I believe it is supposed to be developed into a full length movie if I remember correctly.

[Jack]

That would make another flick I wouldn't pay to see, like the Saw series.
That's entertainment?

[Jagged]

I dislike how an absolutist trend has started on these boards... I can now say there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing everybody I can, and nobody can say im wrong on so many levels... its ridiculous, i don't care if its appeal to absurdity. As speaking humans who know how to use computers we know killing is morally wrong, no matter what that means.

[Clarence]

you're right. But the law of this savage garden says perhaps these agressive genes (there's debate whether genes are so specific btw) were rewarded with survival and procreation.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Jagged I dislike how an absolutist trend has started on these boards... I can now say there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing everybody I can, and nobody can say im wrong on so many levels... its ridiculous, i don't care if its appeal to absurdity. As speaking humans who know how to use computers we know killing is morally wrong, no matter what that means.

I think that's the point of the vid, though. The killer is trying to force the professor to reverse his position when faced with the consequences of the line he touts. It's all well and good for these people to justify murder with biology until it's they that are being threatened. Then they try to appeal to some higher morality that, until that point, they had been trying to prove did not exist.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I think that's the point of the vid, though. The killer is trying to force the professor to reverse his position when faced with the consequences of the line he touts. It's all well and good for these people to justify murder with biology until it's they that are being threatened. Then they try to appeal to some higher morality that, until that point, they had been trying to prove did not exist.

Nobody was justifying murder as an action. The only person who was justifying themselves was the killer. Nobody was disproving that morality did not exist either. There is a whole big long discussion about this stuff within my thread "Do natural rights exist?" - I suggest you voice your opinion in that thread.

Do natural rights exist?

[phoenix_fire]

Hey! No advertising in my thread!

At any rate, the killer was saying that the natural end of saying that all actions, especially violent ones, are driven by factors beyond our control is that his murder of the professor can be done with a clean conscience and without his culpability. He has on his side very much espoused the arguments of the professor. And the professor is finding that to stay true to his convictions will earn him death.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Hey! No advertising in my thread! At any rate, the killer was saying that the natural end of saying that all actions, especially violent ones, are driven by factors beyond our control is that his murder of the professor can be done with a clean conscience and without his culpability. He has on his side very much espoused the arguments of the professor. And the professor is finding that to stay true to his convictions will earn him death.

Tell me where the professor stated that actions are uncontrollable.

[phoenix_fire]

That was the killer's point. If you watch again, he spends some time going over the professor's idea of genetic determinism.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire That was the killer's point. If you watch again, he spends some time going over the professor's idea of genetic determinism.

The killers point was his own point, and had absolutely nothing to do with the professors assertion that genes can explain social behavior among humans.

[5010]

Isn't 'humanity' defined by the surviving humans? If killing had no boundaries, then there would still be a humanity, but it wouldn't be this humanity.

[Jagged]

.... anyways. One flaw in the killer's argument is that he states, as a rebuttal to "killing is wrong," that it is in his genes to do so, (so as a result of the professor's theory), he must kill the professor.

The killer doesn't actually know if killing is truly in his genes until he actually kills the professor. Essentially, he is citing the fact that it will happen to justify it happening, using circular logic. Basically he saw through the professor's theory and instead of understanding the theory under the broad context it was meant to be viewed in, he selfishly applied it to himself as a way to not be responsible for his actions.

To throw himself and the belief in his own personal ability to choose away in order to merely test a theory distorted through circular logic remains completely unjustified... Im assuming everybody believes that they have the right to choose in the dimensions we live in...

[phoenix_fire]

I don't think he was testing anything. He's a serial killer. He was making a point.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I don't think he was testing anything. He's a serial killer. He was making a point.

Again I ask! What was the serial killers point and how the hell did it have anything to do with the professor's theory?

[phoenix_fire]

His point was what it said at the end: ideas have consequences. The professor's death was the consequence of his beliefs: the consequence being that someone ostensibly took him seriously.