From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 16:28:08 MST
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>I'd like to return to this thread after some time thinking about the
>issues raised.
>
>
>On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 08:37, Greg Jordan wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>context. Do you maintain that billboards on private
>>>property that happen to be within sight of highways
>>>(just as distant mountains are within sight), should
>>>be restricted in what appears on them?
>>>...
>>>
Perhaps one needs to consider that force, call it coercion, exists on a
scale. We may not yet have a good calibration for it, or a decent
meter, but clearly offering bread to a starving man, but insisting that
he do something first counts a some degree of coercion. And threatening
a well armed man with a club does, also. And screaming at a child. And
this ranges must include everything up to words of praise for trying to
perform correctly, and down to torturing someone to death for failing to
satisfy your whims instantly (without your bothering to inform them).
These are all acts along a scale of coercion, though I can't place all
of them in order. Somewhere along that scale will be the billboards.
Is the scale continuous? (Or essentially continuous to the limit of
human perception?) Is it reasonable to pick one place along the scale,
and say "Everything below this is unethical, everything above it is
ethical"? Clearly some positions on the scale are considered unethical
by nearly everyone. Likewise other positions are considered ethical by
nearly everyone. But it's not obvious to me that there is a clear line
of demarcation. Perhaps acts of coercion are merely more ethical or
less ethical that other acts. And I notice that I didn't consider the
expected consequences of the various acts. If those are an important
component, then things get a lot more complicated. But if they aren't,
then what is the value of the scale?
Then there are other components. After someone has purchased an
expensive house with a magnificent view, is it his neighbor's right to
build a high fence? How high? This isn't coercion, but it's certainly
provokation. So perhaps the model is too simple...
Simple words and traditional concepts are more suited to understanding
things quickly than to understanding them correctly. It's rather like
the army rule for officers: "Make a quick decision, and be certain. If
you happen to be right, so much the better." And that has merit if you
are trying to act quickly. But if you are trying to make a
philosophical analysis, it induces oversimplified reasoning. This is a
good part of why physics shifted over to mathematical models. But when
we can't measure things, what are the alternatives?
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 02 2003 - 16:35:06 MST