Date: Sat 26 Oct 2002 - 19:10:04 GMT
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > There is still a dialectic going on between similarity and
> > difference, so that individuals may be considered tokens of the
> > human type. People are not so different from each other as to be
> > nonrelational; they still resemble each other more than they do
> > stars, or cabbages, or monkeys. People are recognizably people.
> > And our rights and wrongs are similar, simply because we all share
> > this common world (each of us knowing some but nowhere near all of
> > the others with which we share it), and a common
> > self-conscious-yet-spatiotemporally-finite, social and-
> > language-bearing existence within that world. Our common humanity
> > and our commom situation frames our context and discourse. That's
> > why, extenuating circumstances aside, murder is wrong, theft is
> > wrong, dishonesty is wrong, rape and molestation are wrong.
> Hi Joe,
> A little bit late I suppose, but I hope you don 't mind,
> To the above I wish to comment as follows,
> I see what you try to say here, but IMO all is due to some agreement
> upon a social/ cultural level. It has to be that way to form a
> society, to have some humanity, to have a context and discourse I
> agree. But I don 't agree up to the point that murder etc is ' wrong '
> ! Don 't misunderstand me, I have a reason for saying that...
> We do understand a lot about how people act, behave and react.
> Changing that, thus ' changing ' people by letting them follow
> rules, which in most part disminish genetic and memetic charac-
> teristics is ' wrong ' in my book.
> Someone who murders another, the one who steals, the one
> who is dishonest have his or her reasons, whatever they are.
> The point I am trying to make is that within those extenuating
> circumstances we have to draw some ' understanding- lines '
> to comprehend the reasons.
Certain facts concerning our existential situation are common to all humanity, and certain universal (for humans) rules may be drawn from them. One is reminded of Kant's reversability and universalizability criteria; would the doer of the selfsame act consider it ok if it were done to the doer, and if everyone did the same as the doer, would the result be beneficial or detrimental overall. If we value our own existence and do not wish it to be prematurely terminated, we cannot consider it ok to terminate another's existence. If we value our personal space and do not wish it to be violated without our consent in order to satisfy the desires of another, we cannot consider it ok for us to violate another's personal space without their consent. If we value our possessions and do not wish them to be taken from us without just compensation and our consent, we cannot consider it ok to divest others of their possessions without justly compensating them and obtaining their consent. Plus, if everyone murdered, no one would be safe in their existence. if evetryone raped, no one's personal spave would be above forced violation. And if everyone stole, then possession would come to be worthless, as would all effort to attain possessions - including theft. The self-contradictions are rife. Of course, it would've been OK to kill Hitler had we had foreknowledge of the course of subsequent history with him remaining alive, and it is acceptable to use lethal force in defence of one's own life against an attacker bent upon our demise, and similar exceptions could be devised for the other prohibitions, but that is why I stated *extenuating circumstances aside*.
> Now, like Fukuyama writes, that we know thanks to the
> genetics, ethology and sociobiology what makes a man
> tic in some way, biotechnology is running away with the goodies ! They
> gonna try to ' change ' us ! If we indulge ourselves into techological
> changing the characteristics of the human being, and thus limiting his
> natural restrictions we' re wrong !
> There is currently showing a movie here called the Minority
> Report in which a society is portrayed wherein murderers
> are filtered out in advance, thus before they commit the crime.
> Do think that is ' right ' !?
It is, and in principle will forever be, impossible, simply because the future cannot be foreclosed (see Karl Popper). If it were possible to do flawlessly I see no reason not to do it, but, as even the movie shows, that is not possible.
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 26 Oct 2002 - 19:14:24 GMT