The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

I have just finished reading the book, Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy by Professor Simon Blackburn that I believe is a good introduction to the concepts of Philosophy. However, I was able to utilize my knowledge and reasoning to spot some faults in this book. In Chapter 6, 'Reasoning', on the bottom paragraph of page 205, Professor Blackburn states:

"A related ambiguity is responsible for some thirty thousand deaths a year in the United States. 'A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Each person? Or the people as a collective, as in 'The team can have a bus'? If the founding fathers had been able to think in terms of quantificational structure, a lot of blood might not have been spilt."

Professor Blackburn, with this statement, has an unsupported premise that 'militia' means only what modern English proscribes it to be, therefore, not allowing any other definition of 'militia'. He presents no argumentation as to his premise, but only a conclusion that 'a lot of blood might not have been spilt.' He does not recognize that if there were no firearms that people would find other ways to murder people. He also does not recognize that much-spilled blood has been prevented by the brandishing or utilization of a firearm in the prevention of a crime. He also has the unstated premise that the firearm is responsible for the deaths rather than the person who utilized the firearm.

This statement has Cognitive Bias regarding the word' Militia'. In modern English, the word militia has a different meaning than it did for our Founding Fathers. Today, militia implies the volunteering of state residents that assist in meeting the demands of a disaster or emergency within a State or when the Federal government needs additional resources to meet a disaster, emergency, or war-like actions. The State Militia is called up by the Governors of a State or the President, where they report to their staging areas and draw upon the equipment and weaponry in the armory that the State controls and maintains. In our Founding Fathers' time, 'militia' had a much broader meaning. At that time, a militia was any group of citizens, whether it be a town or city, a county, or the entire State that agreed to work together, mostly utilizing their own firearms or a cooperative armory, to defend themselves against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, that would harm them (think of mob actions, or war parties of Indians, or the violent actions of French and British troops), or attempt to deprive them of their Natural Rights (think of the battle of Lexington and Concord Massachusetts at the start of The Revolutionary War, and individual criminal activities that were exceedingly difficult to prevent in both rural and urban environs of the time). Therefore, our Founding Fathers did not mean militia to mean only those actions by a State-controlled agency and State-controlled firearms and munitions. Each person, or persons, had the Natural Right to defend their Natural Rights through individual actions or a militia.

For those that claim in modern America that there is no need for individuals to defend themselves, they often do not consider the implications of that claim. Most individual criminal actions occur in a short timeframe. A short enough timeframe in which it may not be possible for law enforcement to respond to protect the victim, especially in suburban and rural areas. Would you allow the victim of a crime to be killed, maimed, harmed, or deprived of their property in violation of their Natural Rights before law enforcement was able to assist them? Depriving them of the means to protect themselves, their family, and their property would be a result of not allowing them the means of defense.

For those that claim in modern America that there is no need to defend against deprivation of Natural Rights by a government, I would remind them that history has shown that all governments become oppressive if not checked by an armed citizenry. Taking away the firearms and munitions of an individual is often the precursor to oppression by the government, and armed citizenry is often the means to preventing or ending oppressive governments (think of the American Revolutionary War or the overthrow of other governments).

By not addressing these premises and arguments in his statement Professor Blackburn has demonstrated some of the faults of incorrect thinking that he himself points out. This only proves that he is human and subject to human error. But this also demonstrates that even experts are susceptible to Cognitive Biases, Logical Fallacies, and incorrect Thinking. Experts are also prone to making statements about things that are outside their expertise. Therefore, we should all be wary of following expert advice or opinions, as:

"Experts ought to be on tap and not on top."
  - Irish editor and writer George William Russell

Consequently, we must all critique expert advice or opinions before we take any actions on their advice or opinion.