virus: get me off this list!!
Rahner, David T. (KZBV@MARISTB.MARIST.EDU)
Sun, 13 Apr 1997 13:14:05 EDT
> James
> Sorry for the out-of sequence postings lately, my mailer
>has been playing up and now I am just catching up.
>
>>Tony Hindle wrote:> From all this I sense that you have a great
>>sense of
>>>humour. Have you heard any of Bill Hicks' ?<
>>Only what you have posted. It is interestingly funny, and I shall have to
>>find some more (Item #8785 on the list).
> I envy you. I have heard it all and wish I could have it deleted
>so I could enjoy the extra-excitement of not knowing what comes next
>(actually his last live performances have just been released which I
>havent yet seen, but I am in no hurry as I realise it will be the last
>new thing of Bill's that I will ever hear.)
>>Actually, I thought I had answered, "Would you swallow a happy pill if it
>>meant you could disconnect from reality?" with "No, reality would
>>probably kill me quickly if I did."
>
> Heres a better version of the thought experiment:
> "would you swallow the pill if it meant that in reality you
>would die within a minute, BUT your subjective reality would continue so
>that you experienced a long, happy fruitfull life and the world was a
>much better place"
>
>>><Snip backquote: thought experiment on preventing murder>
>>The original post (from April 3) was this:
>>/>> Rationalization is
>>>>just such a process; because I have a greater good in mind, a minor
>>evil
>>>>is tolerable which progresses me toward that greater good.[JHW]<<
>> > Provided that a rational analysis is made I can't see what is
>>>wrong with this (example; I would kill a person to stop them from
>>>killing two others.)[T H]
>>This is a pretty bland description of a situation: I have spent the last
>>few posts trying to get sufficient clarification to answer clearly. We
>>have so far ruled out any alternatives avoiding death altogether, which
>>led me to observe: PERHAPS one death is better than two. YOU changed the
>>premise, asking Under what circumstances might two deaths be better than
>>one? Which I answered,
> Fair comment James, I got sidetracked.
>>Would I kill to protect a greater number of persons? No, minor evils do
>>not justify greater goods.
> This is the question I meant to ask and your answer is the one I
>find fascinating. I would say that your decision [to not kill] is an act
>of evil. By your actions you cause death.
>> Even if I cannot protect a greater number of
>>persons from a killer without committing murder myself, I am not
>>justified in murdering a killer. This eventually leads, in my opinion, to
>>"murder by the numbers"; count the number of persons on each side of a
>>conflict, declare the smaller number potential murderers, and kill them
>>to prevent a greater injustice.
> I can understand how real world practicalities might cause this
>to escalate into a net loss of lives, but if this was known to be so
>then the decision [to not kill] would be good. (your murder by numbers
>brings to mind a quote from some U.S. general during the cold war "if
>after a nuclear war there was 2 americans left and one Russian, I would
>consider that an American victory")
>>Do NOT try this in the US! The greater number of persons will put you in
>>jail or inflict capital punishment on you for defending them. If you
>>cannot incapacitate the killer without killing him, you must let him
>>proceed, hire him a lawyer to keep him from being punished, and
>>sympathize with him for having an unhappy childhood. (This may be a
>>self-correcting meme; after a sufficient number of persons who hold it
>>become victims of murder, the rest of us will return to executing murders
>>as per previous practice).
> Cards on the table time. I am in favour of the death penalty. I
>realise this particular opinion is in apparent conflict with a long list
>of apparently liberal opinions but I still hold it and wait to be
>convinced otherwise.
>>>> Im not sure I understand your meaning of the transient nature
>>of
>>>>objective reality (subjective reality yes).<<
>>Today the river runs here, in a thousand years it will run over there,
>>uncovering a rich river bed of mud, drowned shipwrecks & etc. All reality
>>is thus, today having such a description, tomorrow a different
>>description, continuously changing.
> Right, I understand now.
>>Giving belief as a starting condition is difficult, since I have no use
>>for belief. Given that reality changes, as soon as it changes enough to
>>refute X, then I must give up X, as being the product of a misconception.
>>Whether or not I die, if X is false, believing X will not make it true,
>>and reality will reinforce continually that X is false, therefore I
>>cannot believe it any longer.
>>Did that help?
> Yes I think we have a language difference. I would say that I
>hold beliefs but only temporarily until such time as my experience shows
>me that its time to change it. I was trying to imagine what how I would
>behave if I held a belief that once doubted would cause my death.
> Lets try a practical example. Supose that a gun was pointing at
>you and the trigger was controled by a device that was picking up
>electrical brain activity that was only present when you were scared
>(that you would be shot). Would you ever be shot?
> I dont think I would be shot until I decided that life wasnt
>worth living, only then would I no longer be scared.
>
> BTW thanks for your thoughts on the 3 object universe, I cant
>really get any further with it myself. I cant even make my mind up
>wether science would be made simpler or more complicated in it.
>
>>> "suppose that objective reality consisted only of the moon. sun,
>>>earth. That is to say nothing more was observable because nothing more
>>>existed, then what would science have looked like?"
>> > I just think this hypothetical helps shed light on the nature of
>>>science.<
>>Let's see; we would have biology, geology, mathematics and zoology
>>essentially as-is, I suppose; astronomy ( and astrology ) would be absent
>>or in radically different form; physics would be handicapped with little
>>or no light-bending phenomena to observe to validate/disprove
>>Alternate-Einstein's relativity theorems. That's all I can come up with
>>at the moment.
>
>Also for info. on the state of Japanese culture re. the emperor/war.
>Madness, absolute madness thats all I can say (and I believe we will
>never reach that state in uk/usa.)
>>I understand empathy; I was asking why this particular story struck a
>>chord with you, which you answered above quite well. By the way, what are
>>"con-specifics"?
> I was trying to say "organisms of the same spieces, I have read
>the expression somewhere, is it co-spe......?
>>>I definitely agree with Martz and Mark on this one.<
>>I'm not sure I agree or disagree, I just think more is learned than
>>instinctual in human childrearing.
>>Your story also brings to mind the children of Jonestown, Guyana when the
>>People's Temple cult committed suicide. What were those parents thinking
>>when they killed not only themselves but their children? Is there a
>>deadly toxic-meme such as "There are causes worth destroying yourself and
>>your children for?" What kind of counter-meme could we devise to immunize
>>against it?
> More madness. Now heres a strange memory I have. I remember
>seeing a t.v. documentary on a suicide cult which showed a few reluctant
>members being injected against their will with a poison that would kill
>them within 10 minutes. The look upon the face of one woman will stay
>with me for ever, she had been struggling to avoid the injection, but
>once she had been given it she just looked so sad, I thought she knew it
>was just insane rantings that has caused her life expectancy to drop to
>ten minutes. I say this is a strange memory because I wonder how they
>got the pictures, unless the cult members took them.
>
> Take care
>Tony Hindle.