Dennis Claxton wrote:
>
>
> >Drug trade related violence and rampant killing sprees are two very
> >different animals, really.
>
> Depends. Are you saying drug trade violence is rational somehow?
I think I would agree with Wojtek here, and with your suggested interpretation of his position.
I prefer to operate with a shifting conception of what is "rational," and I do not want to use either "rational" or "irrational" as moral judgments. Many people are engaged in the drug traffic at many levels, and I think the presumption should be that they "choose" (or find themselves involved in) the drug trade _as a trade_, a choice prior to the violence involved. Then the question becomes, _Given_ that people are in the drug trade, is the violence that ensues "rational"? Since it would seem to be necessary under some conditions at least either to resort to violence _or_ to withdraw from the drug trade (and that is contrary to my original supposition), then then, yes, the violence is rational.
Ted, as I under stand him, has a transhistorical conception of "true rationality," and hence would/will reject this. But I can't accept any such conception of "true rationality."
Carrol