Car v. Firearm
Nov. 19th, 2018 10:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mangosteenA popular argument in discussing the dangerousness of cars vs. firearms goes something like this:
And you know? That's a good point. It's certainly worth looking at it a little more, because on its face that argument is a fair one; two seemingly equivalent circumstances have completely different patterns of blame.
So, let's poke at it. I'm going to propose a couple of different lenses through which to look at the argument, and we'll see where it goes.
Lens 1: Differences If two things are called the same name (e.g. "apple" and "apple"), but the description of how they're the same is different (e.g. "That apple is a fruit in a bowl in front of me." and "That is a picture of an apple.), then they're actually two different things, regardless of the name. Aristotle totally nailed that one.
Lens 2: Primary use: The primary use of an object is what we'd expect the object to be used for, in general. In the case of a car, that's transportation. In the case of a firearm, that's projecting force at a distance.
Lens 3: Proper use: The proper use of an object is when a user uses the object for its primary use. For example, a driver using a car to transport themselves (and possibly passengers), or a person using a firearm to project force at a distance.
So let's take the argument at the top again, and view it through those lenses.
"When a drunk driver kills someone with a car, we blame the driver."
Object: car
Primary use: transportation
Use in this case: propelling the car into a person
The use in this case does not match up with the primary use, so it fails the "proper use" test for the object.
"When there's a mass shooting using a gun, we blame the gun."
Object: firearm
Primary use: projecting force at a distance
Use in this case: projecting force at a distance
The use in this case does match up, so it passes the "proper use" test for the object.
Remember what I said before: If two objects are called the same name, but the description of how they're the same is different, then they're two different things.
A person who uses a car to kill innocent people was not using a car properly; killing someone is not the same as transport; the primary purpose of the tool.
A person who uses a firearm to kill innocent people was using a firearm properly; they successfully projected force at a distance; the primary purpose of the tool.
...and therein lies the difference.
If the proper use of a tool doesn't result in killing people, then misuse that results in killing someone innocent ends with blaming the operator.
If the proper use of a tool does result in killing people, then misuse that results in killing someone innocent ends with blaming the tool.
Therefore, treating them differently and placing the blame in different places makes complete sense, because they're different.
"When a drunk driver kills someone with a car, we blame the driver, but when there's a mass shooting using a firearm, we blame the firearm. That doesn't make any sense."
And you know? That's a good point. It's certainly worth looking at it a little more, because on its face that argument is a fair one; two seemingly equivalent circumstances have completely different patterns of blame.
So, let's poke at it. I'm going to propose a couple of different lenses through which to look at the argument, and we'll see where it goes.
Lens 1: Differences If two things are called the same name (e.g. "apple" and "apple"), but the description of how they're the same is different (e.g. "That apple is a fruit in a bowl in front of me." and "That is a picture of an apple.), then they're actually two different things, regardless of the name. Aristotle totally nailed that one.
Lens 2: Primary use: The primary use of an object is what we'd expect the object to be used for, in general. In the case of a car, that's transportation. In the case of a firearm, that's projecting force at a distance.
Lens 3: Proper use: The proper use of an object is when a user uses the object for its primary use. For example, a driver using a car to transport themselves (and possibly passengers), or a person using a firearm to project force at a distance.
So let's take the argument at the top again, and view it through those lenses.
"When a drunk driver kills someone with a car, we blame the driver."
Object: car
Primary use: transportation
Use in this case: propelling the car into a person
The use in this case does not match up with the primary use, so it fails the "proper use" test for the object.
"When there's a mass shooting using a gun, we blame the gun."
Object: firearm
Primary use: projecting force at a distance
Use in this case: projecting force at a distance
The use in this case does match up, so it passes the "proper use" test for the object.
Remember what I said before: If two objects are called the same name, but the description of how they're the same is different, then they're two different things.
A person who uses a car to kill innocent people was not using a car properly; killing someone is not the same as transport; the primary purpose of the tool.
A person who uses a firearm to kill innocent people was using a firearm properly; they successfully projected force at a distance; the primary purpose of the tool.
...and therein lies the difference.
If the proper use of a tool doesn't result in killing people, then misuse that results in killing someone innocent ends with blaming the operator.
If the proper use of a tool does result in killing people, then misuse that results in killing someone innocent ends with blaming the tool.
Therefore, treating them differently and placing the blame in different places makes complete sense, because they're different.
no subject
Date: 2018-11-19 05:01 pm (UTC)That said, your response seems to me to be as weak as the (hopelessly weak) argument you're responding to. (I hope it goes without saying that I say this does not diminish my considerable admiration for your writing and your arguments in general). What defines the "primary use" of an object? If I buy a car for the specific purpose of plowing it into a crowd of people, does that become its primary use?
Perhaps you mean to define "primary" to mean "most common". But then you're just playing with words when you say that the primary use of a gun is to "project force at a distance", so that a gun used in a mass shooting is being employed in its primary use. You could equally well say that the primary use of a gun is "to project force at a distance for the purpose of doing something good", in which case that same gun is being used in a way that runs counter to its primary purpose.
Most guns are purchased with the goal of using them to project force at a distance. Most guns are purchased with the goal of using them to project force at a distance in order to accomplish a worthy end. Which of those is the "primary" use? From what you've written, it seems like the only way to answer that question is to ask Matt. But an argument that relies on an arbitrary distinction revealed by an oracle is not an argument.
no subject
Date: 2018-11-19 06:55 pm (UTC)I'm generally on board with consequentialist assessment of right versus wrong, but in practice I'm not so okay with cost-benefit analyses as a method. Turning a question of values into what looks like a math problem tends to obscure the assumptions and value judgements that are built into any type of ethical question. It also invites the creation of false equivalencies. (I recently encountered an interesting collection of such assumptions and equivalencies in this article about economic models of the benefit of taking action on climate change: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-11-15/the-climate-crisis-as-seen-by-the-economics-mainstream-2/).
I think the correct approach here, rather than trying to reduce the problem down to a math problem (or a logic puzzle, as Mangosteen does), is to work on better strategies to engage emotionally with the people you are trying to convince. And part of the question is *which* people are actually worth engaging with. Is it worth seeking a common ground with hard-core gun-rights people, or do you write them off, accept that they are going to be angry no matter what, and instead focus on moving the center or motivating the anti-gun people? Different people are going to have different answers to that question too.
People who find the equivalency of cars and guns compelling are attracted to that argument for a reason. I don't think explaining to them that guns are different from cars is going to change that. I'm not sure that calculating how many lives might be saved would do it either.