FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-23-2003, 11:10 AM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 2,608
Default Physically attacking women

For as long as I can remember, I've been told that it's 'wrong' to hit women. Why?

Yes, men are in general stronger, but it's overly stereotypical to state that ALL females are weak.

Besides, what if a man or woman were of equal physical strength. Would it still be intrinsically wrong to hit her?
meritocrat is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 11:21 AM   #2
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 300
Default

Well, I would say yes. But no more so than it would be for the woman to hit the man. Or for a man to hit another man.
girlwriter is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 11:34 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: U.S.
Posts: 2,565
Default

The notion of not hitting women is a chivalrous/chauvanistic holdover from the days when women and men were much less equal than today. So, I pretty much dispense with this notion.

You shouldn't hit people, period, regardless of gender, unless the situation requires it to prevent greater harm.

Jamie
Jamie_L is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 12:37 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Middle, Kansas
Posts: 2,637
Default

Attacking those who are weaker is considered wrong. For the most part (according to averages) women are smaller and have less upper body strength than men.

However, there are women who could kick a man's ass, and their are men so wimpy that children could flail on them at will.

That said, attacking someone is a last resort as a method of self protection. In that case screw the gender of your attacker, protect yourself.
dangin is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 12:47 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: U.S.
Posts: 2,565
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by dangin
Attacking those who are weaker is considered wrong.
This implies that it is not wrong to attack someone who is stronger than you. Isn't it just as wrong for me to punch an olympic weight lifter with no provocation as it is for me to punch a skinny guy with no provocation? Even though I might be foolish to do the former, isn't it still just as morally wrong?

Jamie
Jamie_L is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 12:59 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,969
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jamie_L
This implies that it is not wrong to attack someone who is stronger than you. Isn't it just as wrong for me to punch an olympic weight lifter with no provocation as it is for me to punch a skinny guy with no provocation? Even though I might be foolish to do the former, isn't it still just as morally wrong?

Jamie
I suspect that there is a greater chance of physical injury if you attack someone substantially weaker or smaller than you. Also, if you attack someone stronger than you, they can exact consequence immediately, while someone weaker would, for the short term, be a slave to your abuses.

Ed
nermal is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 01:02 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Middle, Kansas
Posts: 2,637
Default

I don't know about the morality of the issue. Is it morally wrong when a lioness attacks a gazelle? Is it morally wrong when an alpha male gorilla kills the infant of a new female who joined his troupe so that she would go into estrous sooner so that he could mate with her?


But I think the real issue here is that if you attacked a person of equal or advanced physical abilities compared to your own, even if it was unprovoked, you would get what you've got coming.


The act of choosing to engage in an unprovoked attack against someone weaker has the extra meaning that it is probably cowardly, thus even more worthy of disdain.
dangin is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 01:05 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: U.S.
Posts: 2,565
Default

Let's take a scenario.

I'm at the movie theather. I see two guys standing in line. One is a big, burly, linebacker-type. The other is a scrawny geek. I feel like hurting someone. Is it really more moral for me to give the linebacker a surprise kick in the nuts or bash over the head with a baseball bat than for me to do the same to the scrawny guy?

Looking at it from the flip side, does the linebacker's strength make his desire to be unharmed less important than the scrawny geek's desire?

Jamie
Jamie_L is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 01:22 PM   #9
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 300
Default

I'm with Jamie_L,

What if the big linebacker type doesn't want to hit back? Maybe he's a pacafist, or maybe he believes he shouldn't hit someone weaker than himself, and therefore can't defend himself. Or maybe he only looks tough. Maybe he doesn't know how to hit or even the best way to take a punch. Maybe he's been harrassed his whole life in this way because he's big.

dangin said:
Quote:
The act of choosing to engage in an unprovoked attack against someone weaker has the extra meaning that it is probably cowardly, thus even more worthy of disdain.
I agree, but I would add that this does not make it more wrong to engage in said attack, just more cowardly. I guess to me it's a meaningless distinction though. It's wrong, cowardly and disdainful to engage in unprovoked violence no matter what the reletive strength or weakness of the victem is. If you're living according to this standard, what difference do these finer points make?
girlwriter is offline  
Old 04-23-2003, 02:57 PM   #10
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jamie_L
Let's take a scenario.

I'm at the movie theather. I see two guys standing in line. One is a big, burly, linebacker-type. The other is a scrawny geek. I feel like hurting someone. Is it really more moral for me to give the linebacker a surprise kick in the nuts or bash over the head with a baseball bat than for me to do the same to the scrawny guy?


If it's immoral to hit people, then why should it be 'less ethical' to hit the big man?

Quote:
Looking at it from the flip side, does the linebacker's strength make his desire to be unharmed less important than the scrawny geek's desire?

Jamie
Because someone is 'tough', that really does not give anybody a 'right' to hit him. The big man still posseses a right not to be physically harmed.
meritocrat is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:45 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.