The Motive Fallacy

[Castle]

SD26, You can invent hypothetical "what ifs" all day long for any theory, especially if you are willing to quietly add elements and drop contexts.

"So, an individual only has the intent of an "organization"?

No, an individual in the uniform of an organization can be reasonably believed to be acting in the interests of the organization via established methods of the organization.

"What if the individual is trying to protect themselves in getting out of said organization?"

What if they hit their head and now they hear unicorns telling them to shoot gummy bears to prevent the apocalypse? What if they're buying it to bronze and give the gang member of the month on employee appreciation day? In a world where people aren't all-knowing reasonable actions must be based on all data available and the most likely interpretation, not endless "what if"s. When you see a horse, its reasonable to act as though its a horse, not ask yourself if its a stripeless zebra, hornless unicorn, or wingless pegasus.

Perhaps the guy should contact the police. That seems more likely to be a successful tactic than preparing to shoot it out with the gang. Perhaps he should change his shirt so he isn't displaying to the world that he is in a violent organization.

"What intent are you trying to produce for an individual in your example? I could "produce" the intent that the individual was the victim of a carjacking or abduction and is looking for protection? What is yours?"

See my above response to half formed unlikely interpretations. You get into a car wreck and the guy gets out of his car visibly angry, walks into a store, and tells the clerk "I need to buy a gun." Do you stand there and wonder "I wonder if this chap has been carjacked or has been abducted?" I doubt it. My statement involved the purchaser, the seller, and a wreck. If your argument hinges on the car being full of carjackers or kidnappers please clearly state that you're adding significantly to my statement for ease of fabricating an easier argument to refute.

CastleBravo, In asking why a criminal wouldn't want legally purchased guns assumes a lot. In the current regulatory climate, I agree that they wouldn't. In a less regulated climate where every citizen isn't assumed to be a potential criminal and tagged for purchase then legal purchase wouldn't matter at all to the rare criminal.

Yes, I believe that you are flawed in your thinking regarding uniforms. Can we agree that gang colors are a uniform in areas where gangs are heavily active? It isn't a matter of knowing what a person is thinking. A uniform is a clear declaration that the wearer is affiliating themselves with a group's actions, values, and methods. If an guy in an Iranian army uniform tries to buy materials useful to missile production the appropriate action for the seller isn't "Well, I can't possibly know what this Iranian army guy is thinking or what his motives are. I better just sell him these missile parts because I don't want to unjustly infer that he supports the goals of the organization he's affiliated with.". I'm not talking about inferring what anyone is thinking generally based on any style of dress, this is within the specific context of wearing a known uniform.

If dress signifying affiliation is totally irrelevant a police officer arresting a gang member with a warrant has no reason at all not walk confidently into a crowd of people wearing gang colors and arrest the guy alone, even turning his back on them. After all, all he knows is that they are affiliated with a criminal organization based on wearing the uniform. He has no idea what to expect from any of the individuals he currently sees, right? He should turn his back on the arrested criminals gang as though they were a troop of boy scouts. Those would be very unreasonable actions for the officer to take because you can infer information from uniforms.

[Jake_Ellison]

Here was Jack's statement.

"There is no way to know the motive of a person when they buy a gun, and therefore it is impossible to legislate that only those who want to kill are banned."

Sorry, that's not the full statement. The full statement started out with a short, context free claim: Motive is thought. That was the reason given for the part you quoted. But I explained that, so maybe I shouldn't have repeated. I did, in case you missed it. If you didn't, then never mind.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Jake_Ellison]

So, an individual only has the intent of an "organization"?

Organizations don't have intent, people do. And people's intent can be guessed from their choices, such as the choice to wear gang colors.

What if the individual is trying to protect themselves in getting out of said organization?

That's what the Police is for, in a civilized society. He should cooperate with the Police and help them put the people he's trying to get away from in jail.

If he leaves the gang, and works with the Police, then he has the right to walk around with a handgun for protection. If he doesn't, then he is the member of the criminal gang, until the time when he leaves, and as a member of that gang, he is a threat. Even if he wants to leave, until he does he is a threat. The entire purpose of violent gangs is to constitute a threat. That's why they wear specific colors and behave like thugs.

[Castle]

Jake, I'm not sure what you're getting at. In post 27, post 28 was totally correct imho. I'm not seeing how the "motive is thought" thing changes the assertion Jack made. It certainly doesn't make it any more correct. It just compounds the error because motive is not equivalent to thought, it is a specific category of thought. It looks like there are 2 assertions there that must be separately refuted. It seems like we both agree that both of those assertions are incorrect. If your point is that it should have been included for completeness, I'll concede that.

[SD26]

Organizations don't have intent, people do. And people's intent can be guessed from their choices, such as the choice to wear gang colors.

Exactly the point I wanted established from my question. Organizations don't have intent.

However, the recognition of colors and things like that can be done with the intent of confusion. Some wear "colors" to generate a "guess" that someone is part of something they are not. That can be protection on its own.

[SD26]

So you won't mind if a co-worker keeps a gun aimed at your head for the duration of your work week? After all, guessing at why he does that would be arbitrary, unless he tells you.

Certainly. One should. That's the end of a gun. That's an act of force.