"Good cops" and other imaginary beasts
"Police officer" or "cop" are words used to describe people who commit specific acts. Just like "rapist", "child molester", or "mugger" are words to describe people who commit specific acts. It's not really about the person, but about the acts the person chooses to commit.
Objecting to those acts being committed or to those who commit them isn't at all similar to racism or sexism, because it is based only on actions and the individual person who commits them. Nothing else.
To say "not all police officers are bad" is a nonsense statement. You are denying the description and the definition.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "sheep" is defined as "a white, hoofed mammal with wool". In that case, a black sheep wouldn't fit the definition of "sheep"; you'd need to make up a new word to use for it. And, a tuna clearly wouldn't be a sheep.
Well, a "cop"/"police officer" is a person who enforces laws-- both the unnecessary and the harmful-- and violates property rights while claiming to be protecting them, with violence or threats of violence, on behalf of a government. That isn't a good person, by definition.
To pretend there is something you would call a "cop"/"police officer" who doesn't do the above is to describe someone who doesn't fit the definition of a cop or police officer. You are talking about a completely different set of acts the person commits-- as in the case of a free market "police" analog. You are calling a bald, black unicorn a sheep.
.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
Sometimes police make crimes not sometimes but always
You got my support !
Your mentors of syllogisms should be very proud. Did you take the math or logic? In my college you were allowed to take one or the other, not both.
I actually suck at math, and never took logic. I did have a class on critical thinking, however. And, I see (and consider) connections between things.
A good person might be a bad cop; a cop that does not enforce a unjust law.
He won't be a cop for long. He'll be fired or "accidentally" shot by another cop.
hahaha.
You seem to have two conflicting moral frameworks going on.
First, you claim that it is wrong to enforce bad laws. This squares with act utilitarianism, as the individual act does more harm that good, and you argue thus that the law should not be enforced.
Your second claim is that only once enforcing a bad law, or even agreeing to enforce bad laws makes you inherently bad, which means you are not looking at acts anymore, but at some sort of absolute unrecoverable sin.
If you were to apply consistent principles to the judgement of enforcing a bad law and how that affects a person's morality overall, you would have to do a net calculus about the harm vs the good cops do overall to come to a broad conclusion about a "Good Cop" vs a "Bad Cop".
"This squares with act utilitarianism, as the individual act does more harm that good, and you argue thus that the law should not be enforced."
I can see why you might believe that, but it isn't at all what I'm saying. Even if enforcing the counterfeit "law" did more good than harm, it would still be wrong. Because it is a violation of individual liberty to enforce such a "law".
"Your second claim is that only once enforcing a bad law, or even agreeing to enforce bad laws makes you inherently bad, which means you are not looking at acts anymore, but at some sort of absolute unrecoverable sin."
I don't believe people are inherently bad. I believe they can act out evil, but I also believe they can change instantly by refusing to initiate force or violate property ever again, and by paying restitution to those they have wronged while "doing their job".
Because being a cop requires a person to violate liberty and property as a condition of keeping the "job", there can be no such thing as a "good" cop. But there can be good former cops, and I have known a few. If I believed policing to be an "absolute unrecoverable sin", I wouldn't consider those former cops who have straightened up their lives to now be good people.
When I say absolute, I say it because there is an implied universal in your statement, if you trace it with logic.
Your claim is that cops by definition aren't good because they enforce bad laws and violate property rights.
This means that no person who does those things can be good, or to formalize it;
"There does not exist a person who violates property rights and enforces bad laws who is good."
Through manipulation in formal logic, we can get to
"For every person, they cannot both be good and enforce bad laws and violate property rights."
That's a hell of a claim.
That means if a person walked around curing cancer, comforting orphans and providing sustainable food sources to starving people, all out of the goodness of their heart, but enforced the law specifically against Holocaust denial, and occasionally trespassed, they would be a bad person.
Yeah, pretty much. But the trespass would have to be intentional and regular, and the person would refuse to pay restitution. Good done doesn't excuse bad done, especially when the bad is intentional or done daily as a condition to keep getting a paycheck financed with stolen money.
There can be no such thing as a "good cop". Period.
Your tutors of syllogisms ought to be extremely glad. Did you take the math or rationale? In my school you were permitted to take either, not both.