Comment: Call it accurately.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Not an intrusion at all. Your (see in situ)

Call it accurately.

"This premise, as I will call it, is pregnant with assumptions. The way the question is posed carries a bias in favor of the victim; but we should not presume the passersby shouldn't abandon said victim."

I do not think the way you think, which is obvious, and accurately measurable. A victim is factually a victim, measurably a victim, and the observation of a victim being accurately measured as suffering from injury is no confession on my part of bias, so where does your viewpoint find it's way into your head, concerning what I think, or what I don't think at any given moment?

A case in point:

Victim A is being tortured, is a child of 3, on the verge of death, and Criminal B is working feverishly upon the victim, slicing off pieces, and eating those piece, while the victim screams; which happens to excite the criminal, and the criminal quickens the pace of victimization upon Victim A.

Happening upon the incident in question, the mother of the victim, notices the act in progress, it happens to be occurring on the kitchen table.

My words exactly:

"If there is a principle at work, a routine, a way of behaving, so as to avoid abandoning the victim, which may be the victim abandoning his or her own self, or someone nearby letting the victim suffer without doing anything to help, and having that principle work, in any case, or every case, or most cases..."

If there is a principle at work, then what is that principle exactly?

That is my thinking in that case. If there is bias, then there is bias, and the bias does not exist in my sentence, and the bias may or may not exist in my own being, but the bias, if there is one, is part and parcel to the question, not an impregnation on my part, injecting bias into the sentence, for you to discover, and then find an interest in placing stress on that bias, etc.

This:

"This premise, as I will call it, is pregnant with assumptions. The way the question is posed carries a bias in favor of the victim; but we should not presume the passersby shouldn't abandon said victim. That is a value judgment."

Which value judgment? Who is making this value judgment? What is this value judgement? If it is a value judgment, as you say, then is this value judgment applicable in the example situation, and is this value judgement, as you say it is, applicable in any case where there may be more than one victim, and more than one person causing the injury to the victims?

That was my point, and I don't really know what your point is, other than to confuse my thinking with your thinking, but I can read on to find out if there is any measure, at all, of arriving closer to my goal, which was already (roughly) stated as such:

"The concept of discussion is my intent."

If my intend is confusing, then I can work to iron out the confusion. When I use the word discussion I mean to say that a competition of viewpoints are compared side by side so as to find where the competitive viewpoints are measurably better or worse and the idea is to employ the better and to abandon the worse - in an accurately measurable way.

"It is likewise with respect to someone nearby letting the victim suffer; we may disagree with their decision, but we are not in a position to judge the reasons and values which caused that someone nearby not to intervene on behalf of the suffering victim; and we are in less a position to compel them to action based on our own value judgments."

We can employ a specific case, as mentioned above, and then we can employ an accurately measurable standard by which the competitive viewpoints concerning the specific case are measured accurately, for now, and improved, if possible, in case of further competitive viewpoints arriving on the scene.

Mom finds child, does something, those engaged in the competition of viewpoints offer competitive viewpoints, those caring to know the better viewpoint work at finding it, etc.

I don't know how your mind thinks, but my mind works the way it has worked, does work, and may continue to work, in finding better ways to accurately measure the world and life as it happens currently.

"The principle at work, then, I would contend (as always), is self-ownership."

I don't know how the term "ownership" fits into the general offering that you find to be "pregnant" so I can offer the specific example as a means of bridging the gap between our viewpoints, and if you care to apply your thinking to the specific example, instead of the general one, then I may be able to see the ownership concept bubbling to the surface.

I can say that the word "ownership" is of little use to me as I think the more accurate word for anything I've yet to see concerning the concept "ownership" is the word control.

Take out the word "ownership" and insert the word control, as far as I know, the word control works more accurately in any case: specific or general.

"This principle does not assert in any manner that life is or should be fair to any extent; only that your body is yours, and you may do whatsoever you please with it provided you are not aggressing against that of another."

My words that you found to be pregnant are now moved from general to specific, as the mom finds the child suffering this "aggressing" stuff: limbs flying off, blood flowing, screams, injury, and other accurately measurable things happening in real time.

Child owns something. Child is not doing very well at controlling something.

"As for the practical enforcement of this principle? There is none."

As for the specific example, in my way of thinking, mom shoots the torturer before another limb finds it way into the torturers mouth.

I could be wrong. Perhaps mom stands in line, and gives the criminal a fork.

"There is none."

I don't think that we are on the same page here, so I persist.

The goal (my goal at least) having first been stated roughly, and now stated more specifically.

"In this way, I believe this principle would best suit your scenario's victims, as well as everyone else; simply based on the environment it would foster, which is beyond the imagination of most at this point because of how far down the other path we are."

I saw no principle, pregnant or otherwise, and I think that the principle in my view is clearly in my view, and were the case not a mom and not just any child, instead the specific case was me and my child, then there is no doubt in my mind as to which gun I would grab and use, or which chair, or which pointed stick, if time were dictating the required action to be less affording a more efficient tool for the job.

Perhaps the word that fits well to the principle is expedience.

If it may help I can cut completely past all the references to "philosophy", which I don't see much use in it, and arrive at a progress of thinking that works for me.

There is one known fact, and every attempt to refute the one known fact proves it instead.

Employing the one known fact a person can perceive that life is good, and that is the basis of the concept of good.

Having that competitive perspective, life being good, compared to the competition, which would be, by default, that life is bad, or "not good", then other lesser things can be measured, and done so accurately, according to that basic understanding of good, where life is good.

Applied to the specific situation the principle of expediency probably takes over, mom does something, even if it is wrong, and this dad, with confidence in it being right, does something.

The principle involved according to this dad, is defense of life, which either works, and life goes on, or it doesn't work, and life does not go on.

There is more to the viewpoint, but I don't think that there needs to be a lot of (or even a little bit of) philosophy involved.

Discussion may work better, in my opinion.

Joe