06-01-2003 13:35									#241
	Remove this text

quote: It assumes that lack of action against the immoral is moral.

Realistically, I have no way of knowing the "moral status", if you will, of any other person, just by looking at them. I have to have some sort of insider's knowledge, or be a mind-reader.

Thus, your "flaw" is possibly relevant in a thought experiment, but not nearly as relevant in the real world.

	06-01-2003 13:46									#242
	Got spare money?

David, But this helps explain why your are against war per se. The same philosophy means you are against LAW as well, not so?

	06-01-2003 13:53									#243
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: The same philosophy means you are against LAW as well, not so?

No. Once someone commits an immoral act, it can be reasonably determined that they are in some way an immoral person, and should be punished for that act in some form not relevant to our discussion.

However, don't try to apply this to international relations. It's all well and good if everyone consents to some world government and gives authority to that governing body, but if they do not, that body does not have the authority to punish the wrongs that might be committed.

That is, of course, if you believe that consent of the governed is important. If you believe that might makes right (as most non-Libertarians ultimately do), your conclusion will be different.

	06-01-2003 14:04									#244
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

II assume, David that you believe that states have the inherent right to secede – given the primacy of “consent” of the governed.

Also, if you believe in LAW, how can you be a Libertarian? LAW implies denial of freedom to an individual by others. As you said earlier, you have no right to interfere in the liberty of others.

	06-01-2003 16:12									#245
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: In our own case, we are a representative government of the people. Recent attempts at legalizing marijuana, for example, were shot down by the people. The Libertarian though would probably disagree and say something along the lines of freedom, liberty, etc. I believe we are representative of the people while the Libertarian does not. But I believe the people of this country have made their decision.

The anarcho-syndicalist would say that democracy is the idea that people own and control themselves, not that the state owns and controls the people. As such, the anarcho-syndicalist would say drug laws, and any other statist laws, are obstacles to democracy, i.e. not of the people.

quote: Personally I would see that as one of the most outrageous and destructive ideas I've heard. I believe we have the right to ban and control things that will damage our society as a whole.

I would say that drug laws, particularly those similar to the laws enforced in the US, are outrageous, destructive, and damage our society as a whole. Not only are half a million non-violent drug users locked up in our prisons, the crime caused by these drug laws gives us a crime-rate unparalleled in the Western world, comparable to the likes of Russia. It is tyranny.

quote: I agree with this, but with the addendum, that the Opium deals were part of those agreements, and Opium was often lumped together with what we would considered "normal" goods. That's why the Chinese had some much trouble and why it led to confrontation, because the boats they went after had other things on them in addition to the Opium on board.

I'm not sure I'm following you... Are you saying that the agreements force the Chinese to buy the opium? If so, I'd appreciate a source.

quote: though remember we are judging him by 2003 standards, and during this same time in America, we practiced institutionalized slavery

He was no less than a murderer and a thief on a massive scale who caused unthinkable amounts of suffering. I really don't see why you're arguing the point.

quote: However, the point I was trying to make was this particular revolution failed because more people side with the Emperor than against him.

Actually, the revolution failed because of poor political and military leadership... The actual feelings of the people are pretty much irrelevent. What's relevant is supporting which side keeps you and your family alive.

quote: I just don't see how having a nation with 2 million addicts strung out is a good thing. One final thing, is that Opium abuse was across all classes, not just poor peasants.

Drug abuse is almost invariably centered around the poor and oppressed members of society (as long as the price isn't prohibitively expensive) even it spreads across all levels of society. Opium abuse in China was no different. There's a reason why opium addiction exploded in the early 19th century; that's when poverty exploded...

	07-01-2003 00:09									#246
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Without taking sides (pro- or anti-Libertarian), it seems to me that a great deal of the problems in this debate have been semantics. It seems that David et al are interpreting "murder" as the killing of a completely innocent person (ie: someone who has done no wrong, and certainly isn't threatening or on the brink of killing five people), whereas Agathon is looking at it more of a "someone is going to kill five people, and you can stop that one person by killing them" angle.

I think this is actually an interesting debate, and wonder what the Libertarian position on the latter interpretation is. I should think it would be that since that situation is not technically "murder", it is a different beast and therefore ok. Am I wrong?

	07-01-2003 00:17									#247
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki It seems that David et al are interpreting "murder" as the killing of a completely innocent person (ie: someone who has done no wrong, and certainly isn't threatening or on the brink of killing five people), whereas Agathon is looking at it more of a "someone is going to kill five people, and you can stop that one person by killing them" angle.

No S*** Sherlock!

BTW - in this example the person who you kill to stop the five being killed is not the person who is going to kill them (although David's argument rules that out as well).

OK then...

If someone is going to murder(David) five people and it can be prevented with another murder(David), should we allow it?

Semantic issue over.

	07-01-2003 00:24									#248
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Agathon No S*** Sherlock! BTW - in this example the person who you kill to stop the five being killed is not the person who is going to kill them (although David's argument rules that out as well). OK then... If someone is going to murder(David) five people and it can be prevented with another murder(David), should we allow it? Semantic issue over.

Hmm....I think you may be wrong, but I won't speak for David. Personally, I think Libertarianism is wrong simply because I do believe in the "greater good" that David has explicitly said Libertarians don't buy into. However, I do have to side with David if you think that killing a person totally at random to prevent someone else from killing five people is a good thing. If you are talking about the would be killer him/herself, then by all means, blow the MFer away, but a random killing does not really make sense. My original point is that I'm not sure Libertarians would have a problem killing the would-be killer, but would killing a totally unrelated person. Then again, maybe I'm wrong.

	07-01-2003 01:38									#249
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd All right, I understand the concept of "lesser of two evils". And when one is deciding something relevant to themselves only, I agree with its application.

Do you thus agree that five violations of the right to life is worse than one?

quote: However, in our example, my decision affects other people, in fact, other innocent people. If I can save five innocent people by murdering one innocent person, I wouldn't do it - murder is wrong. Look at it like this (and I'll get to your war example in a minute, let's finish up this example). Let's say a would-be killer calls you up. You are 100% certain of the fact that he is a killer, and the fact that he will kill. Let's say he gives you an ultimatum - he says that he has five innocent hostages, and that he will kill them unless you pick up a handgun, walk out to the park, and shoot someone at random. What would your response be to that ultimatum?

It's hard to see how one could be certain in this particular case, but if the case is exactly as you described, I'd do it.

quote: Here's what I would do. I would know that I am not responsible for his actions. I would further know that if I don't kill the one innocent person, I will not be held legally responsible. I also know that if I agree, and kill an innocent person, I WILL be held legally accountable.

There are two points to make in response to this.

(1) Just because you won't be held legally accountable does not mean that you are not morally accountable. The law is not necessarily moral and vice versa.

(2) I would say that my killing someone in this case was the lesser of two evils. I am not responsible for the situation but I have the power to determine whether it turns out to be just bad or really horrible. I'd take just bad.

quote: Therefore, I don't kill anyone. If the killer ends up killing the five people, that is a terrible tragedy, but EVEN THOUGH he gave me a chance to prevent it, I am not morally responsible for the deaths of those five people. Only the trigger man is (or, I suppose, the person who ordered it, etc. - we're both intelligent enough to know what I mean, so let's leave it at that). Objectively speaking, five deaths are indeed worse than one death, and if I can prevent those deaths - ANY of them - in a moral way, I should.

Are you sure you aren't responsible? After all you have the power to make the difference here? I don't think that you should be punishable for killing one to save five, but it is clear that if he kils the five he is to blame and you are to blame for not minimizing the harm done when you could have.

quote: I have no way to act morally and at the same time prevent the deaths of five people. However, I DO have a way to act morally and prevent the deaths of one person. Therefore, I am morally obligated to prevent that one person from being murdered, and that's exactly what I would do.

This assumes that choosing the greater of two evils is the moral thing to do - and that just seems absurd since the greater evil is, by definition, the worse outcome.

What you are saying, in effect, is this: "We should always prefer the better and avoid the worse. A murder is a very bad thing, and more murders are always worse, but there are some situations in which we should countenance more murders than less, so there are some situations in which we should prefer the worse to the better."

quote: I understand what you're saying, but we aren't talking about preserving my rights over those of anyone else, we are talking about me making a decision about whether or not to murder someone.

On what basis is this decision made? How can it be made on the basis of what's morally best when you are choosing the worst?

quote: If you knew as much about Libertarianism as you purport to know, you would know that Libertarians (and especially Objectivists) don't believe in the concepts of societal rights, the common good, etc.

I know this and I've carefully avoided attributing it to them (I hope).

quote: Likewise, we don't believe in a concept of "net morality" or "net liberty". We simply believe that the rights of individuals should be respected, and that we should do nothing to violate those rights.

They say they don't and this is the core of the problem. They say (or are committed) to the following:

(1) We believe in rights the violation of which constitutes moral wrongdoing. These rights are the basis of morality and are the only things in the world that bestow moral obligations upon agents (i.e. if X has a right, I ought to respect that right).

(2) We believe that one person's rights do not matter any more than anyone else's: that is, we must respect the rights of all persons equally (i.e. people of different races have a right to life).

Now they must believe:

(3) Given violation of N number of rights, violation of N+1 rights is always worse from the moral point of view.

Or:

(4) Given violation of N number of rights, violation of N+1 rights is no worse from the moral point of view.

Does anyone really believe (4)? After all it would amount to saying that all crimes have the same moral status (e.g. stealing a packet of crisps is no worse than stealing a million dollars).

If Libertarians take (3) they are still not agreeing that there is such a thing as a "social good" or the "common good"; nothing has been mentioned other than individual rights.

All I am suggesting is that if (3) is accepted then Libertarians are committed to a maximising principle that says more rights respecting behaviour is better and more rights violations are worse. There is no "common good" here over and above the maximisation of respecting individual's rights. In other words what looks like a "common good" is in fact identical to an aggregate of individual rights.

So if you want to call this a "common good" you will perhaps slightly mislead, but you would only be saying, "I believe that more violations of individual rights are worse than less violations."

This is the contradiction - they say that five murders are worse, yet their own principles also entail that it is good to choose the worst. How can it ever be good to choose the worst? I

quote: If someone else infringes upon a person's liberty, then that person should certainly be punished or restrained in some way, but I myself cannot infringe upon the liberty of another in the pursuit of some "common good" that I don't even believe in.

There is no common good here which is different from the rights of individuals. You show me where the "common good" in my thesis exists separately from individual rights?

quote: That's not my position at all. My position is more of something like this: I value liberty, and as such I will not knowingly violate the liberty of any individual, even if it means someone else violates the liberty of other individuals.

In what sense do you value liberty since your valuing of it is consistent with behaviour that produces less of it (again - no common good here - we are only talking about numbers of rights violations).

quote: [b]I cannot control the actions of others, only my own, and I have an obligation to behave morally]/b]. That is the crux of my position, with regards to that example.

No one said you could control the actions of others. If you could, this sort of situation wouldn't arise. If you have an obligation to refrain in this situation, you are saying you have an obligation to refrain from what you acknowledge is better in favour of what is worse - because five murders are worse than one.

The only way you can avoid this conclusion is to say that there is something special about you not doing something and this seems like a concern for the purity of the agent rather than the liberty of the victims. What is it?

quote: There's another mistake. War is not that simple. Every major war the United States has ever fought has been, in some way, the result of the United States behaving immorally or wrongly in its foreign policy.

I'm no friend of the US but this is a bit too much. What about WW2?

quote: I can give examples and explain myself if you like, but the point is that if the United States did not behave so aggressively, and if it did not piss people off, then we wouldn't be at war - wars don't just come out of nowhere.

True, but what if I am the victim of US aggression and I know that the US is developing WMD's - all that changes is that the boot is on the other foot - the example is still sound.

quote: Wrong. I committed murder, which is by definition unjustified. If you want to justify killing an innocent person, you're not going to be able to use the word "murder", because murder is NEVER justified. But killing an innocent person IS murder, so I'm not quite sure how you can reconcile that.

This is a piece of sophistry. It begs the question of what counts as a murder. If murder is by definition "wrongful killing" then what I have described is either not murder (i.e it is manslaughter or something like that); or, the term "murder" means "killing: usually wrongful" in which case I would describe my case as being one of the exceptions. Whether what I have described is wrong or not does not depend on the term we invent to describe it, but on the nature of the act itself. Looking in a dictionary is not sufficient to solve our moral dilemmas.

quote: No, all that is is an attempt by someone else to shift responsibility for their actions onto you. Since they are responsible for their own actions, and you for yours, if they kill the five people and claim you could have stopped it by committing murder, they are full of ****. If you committed murder, you would have been just as in the wrong as they are.

I would say, again, that they are responsible for killing the five people and you are for letting them. Is there a real difference between this case and one in which he tells you he's going to do it and you don't tell the police (are you not responsible in part in this case?). The only difference is that, in the case we are discussing, the means of preventing the five murders are a lot worse than a phone call to the pigs.

quote: There is no conflict. If I desire no/few murders, I must not commit murder.

But you will actually fulfil your desire few fewer murders by committing one in this case. So either you don't really desire fewer murders or you really don't desire that you do them, whatever the consequences.

quote: If someone else commits murder, they should be punished in some form as to discourage murder. We should not ENCOURAGE murder by murdering one to save five - that will only result in more murders, in the long run, because it opens the door to any psycopath who can kidnap people.

But people could do this now.

quote: I'm sorry, you are incorrect again. If I murder someone, the "amount of evil in the world", even as you define it, by definition increases, because murder is an evil act. If someone else murders five people, the "amount of evil in the world" also goes up. But those are two separate acts, and by not murdering anyone, I am doing my part to keep down the "evil rate", if you want to think of it in those terms.

I don't disagree that these are separate acts, but whichever one is chosen will have an effect on the total evil in the world (measured in violations of the right to life). It is the same world. So the consequences are:

(1) You kill. Result: he doesn't. Amount of evil in the world +1.

(2) You don't kill. Result: he does. Amount of evil in the world +5.

quote: True, you can set up any contrived, outlandish scenario that you want.

What's outlandish about either situation. The five for one situation is one that could easily be encountered as a form of psychological torture by prisoners of war. Similar situations to my war example happen almost every time there is a war.

quote: I've already granted that, objectively speaking, five deaths are "worse" than just one. But that doesn't give me the right to commit murder.

So you have the obligation to promote the worse over the better, knowing it is better. That's perverse.

quote: Wrong. I can't make a difference to the outcome. Only the person holding the innocent people hostage can make the difference, by either murdering them or not. He can base his decisions on what I do or don't do, if he wants, but that doesn't mean anyone is responsible but him.

So you are saying that you can never have good reason to be sure of what someone is going to do, are you? My case is about what you do, if you are sure he's going to. Saying that we are never sure is just lies - I'm sure my wife won't try to kill me today. I have no reason to believe that she will. I am sure that George W Bush won't streak across the White House lawn. These are beliefs that would stand up as reasonable in a court. Prove to me that we can't say the same about every single death threat of the kind I've described.

quote: I've also pointed out that if I go ahead and kill the one person, and use your justification to escape punishment, it'll just happen again and again. Sure, lot's of single people will die to "prevent" five others from being killed, but once we hit the sixth person who is killed, doesn't that, by your logic, outweigh the five at once? And, also according to your logic, if I had simply "allowed" the five to die the first time, the situation probably would not have arisen again, and thus there would be a greater "level of morality" in the world.

I find this bizarre. Why would it happen again? You need to be sure in order to make this claim. If we were sure then you would be right. But it is very unlikely that this would be the case in every single case of us having to violate rights to ensure a lesser amount of evil. It's like saying all men who read pornography will become rapists.

I once read about a serial killer who got some perverse pleasure out of forcing other people to kill. As far as I know this hasn't become the norm.

quote: How is it not clear that only the "trigger man" bears final responsibility for someone's death?

Because you have power over the outcome.

quote: I'm not sure I'd say that. Death is a fact of life. It can be tragic, and it can also be a good thing for the person. If one has a disease, or is in a lot of pain, sometimes death is preferable. But don't try to morally equate death with murder.

This doesn't answer the question of why killing someone is bad. It might be good for them (euthanasia). In the cases we are considering it is assumed for the sake of argument that it is bad in these situations. Again, in these cases, is death bad because it is caused by killing or is killing bad because it causes death.

quote: OK. I was just curious. Personally, I've had one undergrad level political philosophy course, and done a lot of independent thinking. As for me, I'm certain you have. As for Berzerker, I have no idea.

I'm not bragging but let's say I've done a lot more than that. I'm surprised you didn't come up against thought experiments in that course - it is a standard tool taught in first year. As for berzerker - I'd be surprised if he'd ever done anything other than read Ayn Rand paperbacks as though they contained the solution to humanity's problems.

	07-01-2003 01:41									#250
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Hmm....I think you may be wrong, but I won't speak for David. Personally, I think Libertarianism is wrong simply because I do believe in the "greater good" that David has explicitly said Libertarians don't buy into. However, I do have to side with David if you think that killing a person totally at random to prevent someone else from killing five people is a good thing. If you are talking about the would be killer him/herself, then by all means, blow the MFer away, but a random killing does not really make sense. My original point is that I'm not sure Libertarians would have a problem killing the would-be killer, but would killing a totally unrelated person. Then again, maybe I'm wrong.

In the case considered it is a random killing, but it doesn't have to be. I don't see how it makes a difference. My point is that the random killing makes sense if it prevents what would have been more killing. And Libertarians seem to believe in a sort of greater good "The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few".

	07-01-2003 01:53									#251
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

"I cannot control the actions of others, only my own, and I have an obligation to behave morally."
-David Floyd

Ned, I agree. I think you have hit on a very significant flaw within libertarianism.

How can one have an obligation to behave morally if you cannot influence other people? Part of moral behavior includes defending your own position and trying to convince other people that this is a moral action. Libertarians cannot do so, without fear of superceding other people's choices.

Libertarians can tell you why something is right for them, but cannot say why it is right for you as well.

	07-01-2003 03:46									#252
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Do you thus agree that five violations of the right to life is worse than one?

I don't know about him, but I'll chime in with this: the murder of one random person is just as heinous, just as evil, just as immoral as the killing of five, five hundred, or five million random people (note the importance or the word random).

quote: They say they don't and this is the core of the problem. They say (or are committed) to the following: (1) We believe in rights the violation of which constitutes moral wrongdoing. These rights are the basis of morality and are the only things in the world that bestow moral obligations upon agents (i.e. if X has a right, I ought to respect that right). (2) We believe that one person's rights do not matter any more than anyone else's: that is, we must respect the rights of all persons equally (i.e. people of different races have a right to life). Now they must believe: (3) Given violation of N number of rights, violation of N+1 rights is always worse from the moral point of view. Or: (4) Given violation of N number of rights, violation of N+1 rights is no worse from the moral point of view. Does anyone really believe (4)? After all it would amount to saying that all crimes have the same moral status (e.g. stealing a packet of crisps is no worse than stealing a million dollars). If Libertarians take (3) they are still not agreeing that there is such a thing as a "social good" or the "common good"; nothing has been mentioned other than individual rights. All I am suggesting is that if (3) is accepted then Libertarians are committed to a maximising principle that says more rights respecting behaviour is better and more rights violations are worse. There is no "common good" here over and above the maximisation of respecting individual's rights. In other words what looks like a "common good" is in fact identical to an aggregate of individual rights. So if you want to call this a "common good" you will perhaps slightly mislead, but you would only be saying, "I believe that more violations of individual rights are worse than less violations." This is the contradiction - they say that five murders are worse, yet their own principles also entail that it is good to choose the worst. How can it ever be good to choose the worst?

quote: I don't disagree that these are separate acts, but whichever one is chosen will have an effect on the total evil in the world (measured in violations of the right to life). It is the same world. So the consequences are: (1) You kill. Result: he doesn't. Amount of evil in the world +1. (2) You don't kill. Result: he does. Amount of evil in the world +5.

All of these arguments are based on a horribly evil premise: that human life has a finite value. This would mean that if you add up 2, or 12, or 50 thousand, or 50 billion violations of free speech, you eventrually get up to the moral equivalent of murder.

However, if human life is considered to be of infinite value N, and the removal of it of value -N, than 5* -N is still -N, when N is infinite. IOWs, a five-fold infinity is no larger than the original infinity. Further, by killing an inocent yourself, your tarnish your own self to that degree, while removing none of the stain from the man who creates the threat.

While I might be wrong, I have the feeling David Floyd also sees human life as having infinite value, and has gotten to the right conclusion without the mathematical training.

	07-01-2003 03:49									#253
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ned -

quote: The above illustrates a flaw in Libertarianism. It assumes that lack of action against the immoral is moral.

The alternative in that hypothetical was David having to murder an innocent to prevent the murders of 5 people who are innocent. David didn't say it was moral to sit by and allow a murder to occur. So much for this "flaw"...

	07-01-2003 03:52									#254
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

One_Brow - that assumes that, if forced to choose between killing one person and killing two people, you'd choose randomly.

I don't know about you, but I'd choose killing one in such a situation. Why? Becuase it is better to have two survivors than one.

	07-01-2003 04:10									#255
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Agathon In the case considered it is a random killing, but it doesn't have to be. I don't see how it makes a difference. My point is that the random killing makes sense if it prevents what would have been more killing. And Libertarians seem to believe in a sort of greater good "The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few".

I think the difference lies in the fact that it's nearly impossible to imagine the killing of a random person saving the lives of five other people. In principle, you may be right - IF there were ABSOLUTE GUARANTEES that your killing someone at random would stop it. The trouble is, there are no absolute guarantees, and most sane people would realize that someone putting you in that position is hardly likely to keep their word. You're other examples make sense, and I'm well versed in game theory and PDs, so I fully agree with you there.

I'd say perhaps the biggest problem is that Libertarianism is an unattainable position and counter to what the vast majority of people would actually like. See, Libertarians (hard-core ones, anyway) don't really like democracy because they don't like the fact that the majority can "subjugate" the minority, as they like to see it. I can't even fathom how a society of Libertarians could function given that there couldn't really be any leaders. There would be no point to having an election since there could be no differing views on how to run any level of government, so how would people get into what few offices would be left and why would they bother trying to get there in the first place?

	07-01-2003 04:34									#256
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

shades of minority report here

	07-01-2003 04:39									#257
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If One_Brow would have power to adjust laws by his logic, then serial killers would have a blast

	07-01-2003 05:07									#258
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ted -

quote: Ted - [quote]Caring may or may not have anything to do with it. Even the most cold rulers also understand practicality. "Slacking off?" So you understand and acknowledge one of the damages that occurs when a couple of million people get strung out. Excellent work, you're learning.

Excellent work, you aren't learning. We are talking about a slaveowner who didn't want his slaves using a drug to relax from the burden imposed by the slaveowner. If this slaveowner banned booze, tobacco, pot, or even bathroom breaks because they detracted from the amount of labor the slaveowner could extract from his slaves, I wouldn't place value on the slaveowner's claims about the horrors of booze, tobacco, pot, or bathroom breaks.

quote: Or maybe they understand the dangers of using a destructive drug by witnessing its effects firsthand.That's pretty solid knowledge I'd say. I've seen firsthand so many people **** up their lives permanently from drug use.

Excuse me, but we are talking about opium, not general "drug use". I used opium and knew people who used, do you? Nope. And you don't know all the factors effecting these people. They may have been messed up before they ever used a drug. God knows many people who use drugs do so because of emotional problems stemming from other occurences in their lives (like slavery under Chinese emperors). Confusing symptoms of emotional trauma with the trauma isn't enlightenment.

quote: Legalization would lead to the situation Doc mentioned, which is exactly what happened in China.

Then why didn't it happen with every country that had legalised opium throughout it's 5,000+ history?

quote: I can't wait to see an entire drug market backed by corporations like McDonalds or Pepsi! (No doubt you have already mentioned the example of Coca-cola, which had cocaine removed from it).

So you have figured out there was no contradiction when I said Coca-Cola and Bayer sold cocaine and morphine/heroin?

quote: So, every single government that has come through, even though several of them ideaologically are natural enemies, have, through an experienced judgement, come up with a conclusion that opium usage should be banned in China, and that doesn't mean anything to you?

When during the period you've cited in China's history did they cease having emperors? And now you are assuming western governments made altruistic decisions regarding drugs. That's BS. When the US banned opium, it was called "the Yellow Peril" and the cited fear was chinese men seducing/raping white women in opium dens. When cocaine became the target, it was black men raping white women. When marijuana became the target, it was those Mexicans. Notice a pattern? You don't know Sh!t about how prohibition came about, and even the people who weren't racists but worked toward prohibition didn't live to see how their "experiment" turned out. You seem to think that the enactment of a policy depends solely on the reason for the policy and that the results are irrelevant. People in 1900 didn't live to see the results of the path they chose, we are seeing the results. The people who enacted alcohol prohibition didn't know they were creating the gang warfare/Mafia and black market (they were shortsighted too) resulting from prohibition, but it didn't take long for the support they had to wither away after people began seeing the results.

quote: most major nations on earth got together and decided that Opium usage was destructive, their judgement means nothing to you? Every last one of them are making these decisions why?

You're changing the debate again from China to other countries, does that mean you now understand that the motives of Chinese emperors are questionable? This same period has seen the rise of socialism. And in this country and others, socialists sought the centralization of power. What better way to destroy federalism and the Constitution than finding excuses to nationalise policy. As for those whose motives were pure (albeit immoral nonetheless), they saw what they considered to be a problem needing government intervention, but they were too ignorant to see what would happen down the road.

quote: By the same token, I seem to recall the American people being subjected to propaganda from the tobacco and alchohol industry.

Does that mean you accept that my response was not a "dodge"? That propaganda from the tobacco industry has come back to haunt them since lawsuits are being filed on the basis that the tobacco industry lied about it's product. The alcohol industry doesn't have that liability.

quote: Sure, the government runs anti-drug ads. And I support them. My anti-drug bias comes not from those ads but by witnessing people **** up their lives.

You would support them. They are deceitful and hypocritical. But Hollywood was in on the act for a very long time, ala Reefer Madness et al. The commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics - Harry Anslinger - told Congress in 1937 that marijuana turned users into psychotic murderers, in 1952, he told Congress marijauna was a communist plot to turn users into pacifists. In 1937, the AMA opposed the prohibitive tax on marijauna saying prohibition just creates more problems. From 1937-39, 3,000 doctors were convicted by Anslinger's dept of illegally prescribing narcotics. In 1939, the AMA reversed it's position to support the ban on pot, and from 1939-1952, only 3 doctors were convicted by Anslinger of illegally prescribing narcotics. There's your altruistic government in action.

quote: Doc has better experience than all of us, seeing people come in through the ER, but that's another story and I won't speak for him, just relaying what I remember him saying.

I've debated "Doc" before, does he treat all the people wounded by black market violence?

quote: Link?

That's what you get for complaining about me asking Strangelove for a link and then telling me to look up links to support your arguments. Wallow in your hypocrisy.

quote: I never complained about you asking Doc for anything by the way.

No, you just applauded a "parody" that made fun of me asking for a link and have continued the joke by repeatedly asking me for links. The fact you do this after telling me to look up links to support your arguments shows what a hypocrite you are. Btw, when I did offer a link, you attacked it as invalid because of the organization that published the article even though you didn't even try to refute anything in the article. So why should I provide you with any links when you're such a scumbag? Instead of asking me for links, take the advice you gave me when I asked you for a link, use google.

	07-01-2003 05:12									#259
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: I'm no friend of the US but this is a bit too much. What about WW2?

We brought that on ourselves by not selling war supplies to the Japanese and Nazis according to David.

	07-01-2003 06:34									#260
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Assume, David, that mom and dad are both drug addicts. Do they harm their kids in any way?

Do kids have any right to have sober parents?

	07-01-2003 06:48									#261
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Do you thus agree that five violations of the right to life is worse than one?

I agree that, in the abstract, five unjust deaths are worse than one unjust death. That doesn't mean, though, that I think causing one unjust death to prevent five is OK.

It may be a "worse result" for five people to die, but it is never my fault that they died, in our example. It would be my fault if I killed one person. You don't think my actions are relevant to the "state of evil" in the world - you seem to think that only hard numbers matter.

But I strongly disagree. Being a moral person and desiring peace and the moral behavior of others means that you yourself must behave in a moral fashion. If you do not, you are being inconsistent and hypocritical. It doesn't matter if, by an immoral act, you could convince someone not to commit an immoral act of their own. That person will either commit an immoral act or not, and you ultimately do not make that decision for them. You only make decisions affecting your own behavior.

quote: It's hard to see how one could be certain in this particular case, but if the case is exactly as you described, I'd do it.

Then not only would you go to prison for murder, but you would be morally accountable and responsible for that murder - the guy who called you didn't force you to do anything. You made your own decisions, and he made his.

quote: (1) Just because you won't be held legally accountable does not mean that you are not morally accountable. The law is not necessarily moral and vice versa.

I agree. The law isn't necessarily moral - and often isn't. Bu laws against murder are always moral, because murder is wrong. Surely you will at least admit this?

quote: I am not responsible for the situation but I have the power to determine whether it turns out to be just bad or really horrible.

No you don't. You have the power to make your own decisions, and the random killer has the power to make his own decisions. If he kills five people, that's bad, and if you kill one person, that's also bad. They are two separate acts, both ultimately contingent upon one person's behavior.

quote: After all you have the power to make the difference here?

No I don't. Again, the person with the gun can either pull the trigger or not. The power is entirely his. All I can do is behave morally, or not behave morally. Because I try to be a moral person, and wish to promote morality, I choose to behave morally.

quote: you are to blame for not minimizing the harm done when you could have.

Again, you are just spreading the blame around. Let's leave blame resting where it belongs - that is, with the person committing murder.

quote: This assumes that choosing the greater of two evils is the moral thing to do - and that just seems absurd since the greater evil is, by definition, the worse outcome.

This is getting repetitive. I am not choosing evil, I am choosing to do good, by not committing murder. The person who chooses to commit murder is choosing evil.

quote: I know this and I've carefully avoided attributing it to them (I hope).

Your belief in and use of notions such as "net good" and "net evil", and things of that nature, seem to me to imply a common good argument.

quote: After all it would amount to saying that all crimes have the same moral status (e.g. stealing a packet of crisps is no worse than stealing a million dollars).

Actually, you are the one confusing legality and morality this time. Legally, it is worse to steal a million dollars. Morally, stealing a packet of crisps is still stealing, so in that sense, both are just as wrong.

Now, I'm afraid I don't quite follow your math - hate the subject, always have. All you seem to be doing, though, is to assign a quantitative value to life, and attempt to make moral judgments and decisions using math. If you want to do that, fine, but to me, morality does NOT boil down to math, rather, it boils down to right and wrong.

A person who desires to be moral, and wants other people to behave morally, does not commit immoral acts. A moral person does not commit an immoral act even if he thinks that action will prevent another immoral act by someone else, because he realizes that people are responsible for their own actions only. I've said this time and time again, but I'll say it again - You do not control what other people do, and their ultimatums do not transfer one iota of responsibility from themselves onto you. If they pull the trigger and kill five people, they are 100% responsible. If you pull the trigger and kill one person, you are 100% responsible.

quote: You show me where the "common good" in my thesis exists separately from individual rights?

It's possible I misunderstood you - if you're telling me you aren't making a common good argument, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even though it sounds as if you are.

quote: In what sense do you value liberty since your valuing of it is consistent with behaviour that produces less of it (again - no common good here - we are only talking about numbers of rights violations).

Wrong. My behavior is consistent with my belief, because my actions produce more liberty. Someone else's actions might produce less liberty, but my own actions produce more (if you want to think of it in terms of "morality production").

Most of your points, actually, can be answered with what I've been saying all along - I am not responsible for what someone else chooses, and they are not responsible for what I choose. If I don't specifically address one of your points, my answer is pretty much covered in that statement - I just grow tired of repeating myself.

quote: I'm no friend of the US but this is a bit too much. What about WW2?

Well, let's look at WW2 as two wars for the sake of simplicity. One was the Pacific War and one was the European War.

The Pacific War was a result of US immorality because of our land grabs during the Spanish-American War and Mexican War, and our bullying of the native Hawaiians. If we weren't in the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, Wake, or, for that matter, on the West Coast, then I think we can all agree that Japan would not have attacked.

Granted, they are responsible for their own actions, and I am not trying to deny that. Their actions were wrong, and US actions leading to Pearl Harbor were also wrong (to say nothing of embargos, which are always wrong). But the key is, if the US hadn't been in the wrong FIRST, Japan wouldn't have been in the wrong SECOND.

As to Germany, we made no attempt to negotiate with Germany to get out of the war. Further, we committed acts of war against Germany by escorting British convoys, radioing the position of Uboats to the British (making us morally responsible for murder, if not quite legally), and, ultimately, active naval participation against U-boats.

Further, if we had not behaved immorally in WW1, and fought against Germany even though they were not hostile towards us in any way, it is quite possible that Hitler would never have risen to power. Again, I'm not holding the US responsible for German actions in WW2, I am holding the US responsible for US actions prior to WW2. If we didn't first act immorally, we would not have fought the war.

quote: True, but what if I am the victim of US aggression and I know that the US is developing WMD's - all that changes is that the boot is on the other foot - the example is still sound.

When the US was developing WMDs, no one had the capability to prevent that. Therefore, your specific example is not sound. I understand your general example, but for it to be valid you're going to have to apply it to a real-life situation - to the real world - and then I'll respond to it. Again, you can create any outlandish example you want to "prove" your argument, but unless it can be applied to the real world, it doesn't help you at all.

quote: If murder is by definition "wrongful killing" then what I have described is either not murder (i.e it is manslaughter or something like that)

What you described IS murder, because it IS a wrongful killing. Remember, though, I didn't use the word "wrong", I used the word "injust". A subtle distinction, but I fail to see how you can claim a random killing can ever be just, and I fail to see how unjustice can ever be right.

quote: I would say, again, that they are responsible for killing the five people and you are for letting them. Is there a real difference between this case and one in which he tells you he's going to do it and you don't tell the police (are you not responsible in part in this case?). The only difference is that, in the case we are discussing, the means of preventing the five murders are a lot worse than a phone call to the pigs.

Remember my canned response to this sort of argument? Good. That's my response to that point.

quote: But you will actually fulfil your desire few fewer murders by committing one in this case. So either you don't really desire fewer murders or you really don't desire that you do them, whatever the consequences.

See above.

quote: But people could do this now.

It'd be much easier in your system, because it would not be considered wrong or illegal for someone to randomly pop one person if a would-be killer told them to.

quote: So you have the obligation to promote the worse over the better, knowing it is better.

Acting morally is never worse than acting immorally. Murder is by definition always wrong/immoral, therefore murdering someone cannot ever be better than not murdering someone.

quote: So you are saying that you can never have good reason to be sure of what someone is going to do, are you? My case is about what you do, if you are sure he's going to. Saying that we are never sure is just lies - I'm sure my wife won't try to kill me today. I have no reason to believe that she will. I am sure that George W Bush won't streak across the White House lawn. These are beliefs that would stand up as reasonable in a court.

That's nice, but it's a whole lot more difficult to prove that someone you know nothing about is going to commit a heinous crime just on his say so.

quote: I find this bizarre. Why would it happen again? You need to be sure in order to make this claim. If we were sure then you would be right. But it is very unlikely that this would be the case in every single case of us having to violate rights to ensure a lesser amount of evil. It's like saying all men who read pornography will become rapists. I once read about a serial killer who got some perverse pleasure out of forcing other people to kill. As far as I know this hasn't become the norm.

And why do you think that is? I would think that the illegality of killing random people has something to do with it.

quote: Because you have power over the outcome.

No I don't. Only the trigger man does. He can choose to kill or not to kill - he can't choose to transfer responsibility for his actions to someone else.

quote: I'm not bragging but let's say I've done a lot more than that.

OK. Care to specify?

quote: I'm surprised you didn't come up against thought experiments in that course - it is a standard tool taught in first year.

I did come across them.

	07-01-2003 06:50									#262
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Assume, David, that mom and dad are both drug addicts. Do they harm their kids in any way?

I don't know. It's your example - you tell me.

The act of using drugs doesn't hurt their kids, though, and going by the only information you have given me, the parents do NOT hurt their kids.

	07-01-2003 06:58									#263
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Ned - The alternative in that hypothetical was David having to murder an innocent to prevent the murders of 5 people who are innocent. David didn't say it was moral to sit by and allow a murder to occur. So much for this "flaw"...

Berzerker, David said,

quote: My position is more of something like this: I value liberty, and as such I will not knowingly violate the liberty of any individual, even if it means someone else violates the liberty of other individuals. I cannot control the actions of others, only my own, and I have an obligation to behave morally.

Granting your positon for the sake of argument, then I take it that the libertarian can violate the liberty of individuals if only to restrain those very same individuals from violation of the liberty of others.

In other words, Libertarians endorse drug laws, for example. People who do drugs become addicts who then harm their families and perhaps others as well. Because there is a casual connection between drugs and harm, their regulation is moral.

Libertarians would also, I believe, support laws against individuals exploding nuclear weapons in cities. An absurd example, true. But extendable to a ban on possession of firearms in cities.

But I believe Libertarians actually believe that drug laws violate liberty even though the use of drugs causes harm. Therefor, I think my original interpretation of David's statement is accurate.

	07-01-2003 07:01									#264
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I don't know. It's your example - you tell me. The act of using drugs doesn't hurt their kids, though, and going by the only information you have given me, the parents do NOT hurt their kids.

David, I was a juror in a trial where both the mom and dad were heroin addicts. You had better believe that their kids were harmed. This is no joke.

The only way a person should be allowed to be a drug addict is if they are isolated from society. Otherwise, watch out.

	07-01-2003 07:03									#265
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: David, I was a juror in a trial where both the mom and dad were heroin addicts. You had better believe that their kids were harmed. This is no joke.

Well, if the kids were harmed by their parents, that is obviously wrong. But let's not kid ourselves. A crackpipe isn't hurting anybody. Smoking crack only hurts yourself. The problem only comes in when you yourself hurt others.

That's fine that you were on a jury, but I'm sorry if you weren't able to separate an act from a crime.

	07-01-2003 07:27									#266
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Well, if the kids were harmed by their parents, that is obviously wrong. But let's not kid ourselves. A crackpipe isn't hurting anybody. Smoking crack only hurts yourself. The problem only comes in when you yourself hurt others. That's fine that you were on a jury, but I'm sorry if you weren't able to separate an act from a crime.

David, you assume individuals have no obligations to others. They do, for example, when they are parents, spouses, employee, drivers, doctors, lawyers, judges, etc. Drug addiction prevents or diminishes one's capacity to perform one's obligations.

	07-01-2003 07:53									#267
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by One_Brow All of these arguments are based on a horribly evil premise: that human life has a finite value. This would mean that if you add up 2, or 12, or 50 thousand, or 50 billion violations of free speech, you eventrually get up to the moral equivalent of murder. However, if human life is considered to be of infinite value N, and the removal of it of value -N, than 5* -N is still -N, when N is infinite. IOWs, a five-fold infinity is no larger than the original infinity. Further, by killing an inocent yourself, your tarnish your own self to that degree, while removing none of the stain from the man who creates the threat. While I might be wrong, I have the feeling David Floyd also sees human life as having infinite value, and has gotten to the right conclusion without the mathematical training.

There is no such premise. All that is being compared are rights violations.

If you can't see that the Holocaust was worse than Joe Bloggs killing his wife then I'm afraid there is no help for you.

	07-01-2003 08:12									#268
	Tired of ads?

quote: If you can't see that the Holocaust was worse than Joe Bloggs killing his wife then I'm afraid there is no help for you.

See, the difference is, some people reduce morality to numbers. Other people think of morality in terms of right and wrong and personal responsibility and their own actions and how they all relate. You seem to be the first person. I'm the second person. And I think that's the problem.

	07-01-2003 08:35									#269
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I agree that, in the abstract, five unjust deaths are worse than one unjust death. That doesn't mean, though, that I think causing one unjust death to prevent five is OK.

Bizarre. You are saying that your moral theory prefers the worse to the better. That to me signals contradiction and incoherence.

quote: It may be a "worse result" for five people to die, but it is never my fault that they died, in our example. It would be my fault if I killed one person. You don't think my actions are relevant to the "state of evil" in the world - you seem to think that only hard numbers matter.

If you are given the power to decide whether five people die or one dies YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE no matter what you decide. You may not like it, and it may not be fair, but you have the power; it's your call.

quote: But I strongly disagree. Being a moral person and desiring peace and the moral behavior of others means that you yourself must behave in a moral fashion. If you do not, you are being inconsistent and hypocritical.

That's exactly how Libertarians behave. They say it is worse to let five die, yet they commit themselves to allowing it.

quote: Then not only would you go to prison for murder, but you would be morally accountable and responsible for that murder - the guy who called you didn't force you to do anything. You made your own decisions, and he made his.

He did force you to make a decision. Once he says, "it's your call, you decide", you cannot avoid choosing. You know that doing nothing ensures the death of five, so you have been forced to make a decision. The courageous thing to do is make it instead of trying to weasel out of it.

quote: I agree. The law isn't necessarily moral - and often isn't. Bu laws against murder are always moral, because murder is wrong. Surely you will at least admit this?

Nope. If the traitors had managed to kill Hitler I would have given them a medal.

quote: No you don't. You have the power to make your own decisions, and the random killer has the power to make his own decisions. If he kills five people, that's bad, and if you kill one person, that's also bad. They are two separate acts, both ultimately contingent upon one person's behavior.

Don't be silly. If he puts you in the position of having to decide, then you have to decide, you cannot escape the decision. The two are related since his putting you on the spot is what causes you to have to make a decision. It is no different than the fact of someone offering you a drink means that you either accept, refuse or ignore them. There are only 2 consequences, you get the drink or you don't.

quote: No I don't. Again, the person with the gun can either pull the trigger or not. The power is entirely his. All I can do is behave morally, or not behave morally. Because I try to be a moral person, and wish to promote morality, I choose to behave morally.

Of course he can, but in this case you have good reason to believe he is sincered. Don't even try to say that we can never be sure what another can do - if you really believed that, life would be impossible.

In any case you still haven't told me how it is possible to behave morally while intentionally settling for something your own moral theory tells you is worse.

quote: Again, you are just spreading the blame around. Let's leave blame resting where it belongs - that is, with the person committing murder.

Again you have the power to make a difference. You cannot escape it.

quote: This is getting repetitive. I am not choosing evil, I am choosing to do good, by not committing murder. The person who chooses to commit murder is choosing evil.

It is getting repetitive because you say you are not choosing evil, yet you accept that killing one person is the lesser of two evils.

You are contradicting yourself in the most flagrant manner possible.

quote: Your belief in and use of notions such as "net good" and "net evil", and things of that nature, seem to me to imply a common good argument.

No - you show me where I have assumed anything more than individual rights added together.

quote: Actually, you are the one confusing legality and morality this time. Legally, it is worse to steal a million dollars. Morally, stealing a packet of crisps is still stealing, so in that sense, both are just as wrong.

And so here we have it - what you are saying is that every violation of a moral rule is simply bad, there is no distinguishing between murder and mass murder or even between stealing crisps and mass murder. Read what you have written; it is absolutely and utterly absurd.

quote: Now, I'm afraid I don't quite follow your math - hate the subject, always have. All you seem to be doing, though, is to assign a quantitative value to life, and attempt to make moral judgments and decisions using math. If you want to do that, fine, but to me, morality does NOT boil down to math, rather, it boils down to right and wrong.

I'm numbering rights violations - I didn't assign a fixed numerical value to a life, all I said was that five violations are worse than one, which you seem to agree with.

[/QUOTE]You do not control what other people do, and their ultimatums do not transfer one iota of responsibility from themselves onto you. [/QUOTE]

I'm sorry but they do. There can be no argument about this, it is a matter of brute fact. If the killer says to you "I will kill five people unless you kill one" and you know he means it (i.e. he's going to do it if you don't), then whether five people die or just one depends on one thing and one thing only, your decision. He isn't transfering responsibility to you - he keeps his. What he does is give you additional responsbility.

Are you telling me that your decision has no effect in this situation? You have the call.

quote: It's possible I misunderstood you - if you're telling me you aren't making a common good argument, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even though it sounds as if you are.

The common goods libertarians often object to are ones that treat "society" as something over and above its members.

quote: Wrong. My behavior is consistent with my belief, because my actions produce more liberty. Someone else's actions might produce less liberty, but my own actions produce more (if you want to think of it in terms of "morality production").

How is this possible. Five deaths is less liberty than one.

quote: Most of your points, actually, can be answered with what I've been saying all along - I am not responsible for what someone else chooses, and they are not responsible for what I choose.

But in life, my excellent friend, the choices that others make often put us into uncomfortable situations. We might not like it, but that is what life is like. Others can force us into having to make heartbreaking decisions - you can complain all you like, but we still have to make them, and if we are courageous people we try for the best outcome.

quote: Well, let's look at WW2 as two wars for the sake of simplicity. One was the Pacific War and one was the European War. The Pacific War was a result of US immorality because of our land grabs during the Spanish-American War and Mexican War, and our bullying of the native Hawaiians. If we weren't in the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, Wake, or, for that matter, on the West Coast, then I think we can all agree that Japan would not have attacked.

I think it would have come later rather than sooner in that case, but come it would have.

quote: Granted, they are responsible for their own actions, and I am not trying to deny that. Their actions were wrong, and US actions leading to Pearl Harbor were also wrong (to say nothing of embargos, which are always wrong). But the key is, if the US hadn't been in the wrong FIRST, Japan wouldn't have been in the wrong SECOND.

Japan and the US were expansionist empires. The problem is that you only need one of these to start a war -so if the US had been nice they would have been attacked eventually.

quote: As to Germany, we made no attempt to negotiate with Germany to get out of the war. Further, we committed acts of war against Germany by escorting British convoys, radioing the position of Uboats to the British (making us morally responsible for murder, if not quite legally), and, ultimately, active naval participation against U-boats. Further, if we had not behaved immorally in WW1, and fought against Germany even though they were not hostile towards us in any way, it is quite possible that Hitler would never have risen to power. Again, I'm not holding the US responsible for German actions in WW2, I am holding the US responsible for US actions prior to WW2. If we didn't first act immorally, we would not have fought the war.

Who could have foreseen Hitler? Remember that Germany was the aggressor in WW1 and in WW2.

quote: When the US was developing WMDs, no one had the capability to prevent that. Therefore, your specific example is not sound. I understand your general example, but for it to be valid you're going to have to apply it to a real-life situation - to the real world - and then I'll respond to it. Again, you can create any outlandish example you want to "prove" your argument, but unless it can be applied to the real world, it doesn't help you at all.

Why do I bother. Look it doesn't matter that it never happened. The test of a good moral theory is that it is not supposed to contain contradictions. The way to test this is to imagine various scenarios in which contradictions might occur. It doesn't matter if the example is not real - it is only an example. In fact all these examples illustrate a general point which is this: sometimes the actions of others, whether we like it or not, force us to decide between the lesser of two evils. Are you going to say that these things never happen? If not then get on with the argument - the examples are only illustrations of this problem.

quote: What you described IS murder, because it IS a wrongful killing. Remember, though, I didn't use the word "wrong", I used the word "injust". A subtle distinction, but I fail to see how you can claim a random killing can ever be just, and I fail to see how unjustice can ever be right.

This is just swapping words. I don't see how this changes the problem at all - if i kill one person, that is unjust, if I kill five that is also unjust. So, again, do you think that five acts of injustice are worse than one?

quote: Remember my canned response to this sort of argument? Good. That's my response to that point.

It's not a response. You are still contradicting yourself. If people keep effectively answering both "yes" and "no" to a question (which is roughly what contradicting yourself entails) one would expect that the question would be repeated.

quote: It'd be much easier in your system, because it would not be considered wrong or illegal for someone to randomly pop one person if a would-be killer told them to.

I've news for you mate - IT IS NOW!

If a case like the one I described came to court the defendant would be judged to have been under duress and would have been let off. Go and read about various forms of diminished responsibility.

quote: Acting morally is never worse than acting immorally. Murder is by definition always wrong/immoral, therefore murdering someone cannot ever be better than not murdering someone.

This is just hand waving. You've already admitted it can be worse so you are contradicting yourself again. You said that you agree "in the abstract" that five murders are worse than one - why don't you just come out and admit that they really are.

quote: That's nice, but it's a whole lot more difficult to prove that someone you know nothing about is going to commit a heinous crime just on his say so.

In courts everywhere people do this sort of thing, so I see no difficulty.

quote: No I don't. Only the trigger man does. He can choose to kill or not to kill - he can't choose to transfer responsibility for his actions to someone else.

Again, he does not transfer responsibility - he creates an additional one by putting you on the spot.

quote: OK. Care to specify?

Nope - I'll keep my secrets for now.

quote: I did come across them.

Then you don't appear to have understand them.

	07-01-2003 08:39									#270
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd See, the difference is, some people reduce morality to numbers. Other people think of morality in terms of right and wrong and personal responsibility and their own actions and how they all relate. You seem to be the first person. I'm the second person. And I think that's the problem.

Same question to you then. A hypothetical, so don't make it harder than it is...

You must make one choice or the other. Push a button, and two people die, or push the other and one person dies.

The rational person chooses the button that kills one person. If you would honestly choose randomly, then I don't understand you. Yes both would be tragic, yes you may say both would be equally tragic...but I can't believe that you would choose randomly if you knew that it was one death vs. two.