>From: Alex Future Bokov <alexboko@umich.edu>
>
>>I do not believe in life after death. I therefore believe that
>>when someone dies and the structure of the brain decays, they are
>>lost.
>I agree, but that is a separate axiom from...
>> It follows axiomatically that I believe the killer suffer an
>>equal fate.
>....this. The no life after death axiom I understand, because it
>meshes with my own Ockham's Razor axiom. The "eye for an eye"
>axiom I don't understand. But then again, I guess that's why
>they're axioms. They don't need a rational basis; one has to have
>*some* arbitrary point of reference (cf. Existentialism Plus).
Yes, the "eye for an eye" axiom is defined by many religions, it is
an aphorism that has endured.
>It would be interesting to speculate on the evolutionary origins
>of this 'justice' meme, and how widespread it is. Do we agree,
>though, that it exists at a level that doesn't run quite as deep
>as the 'survival', 'expansion', and 'opimization' memes?
I would tend to agree
>This is a third axiom-- that if the 'homicidal' and
>'non-homicidal' portions of a perpetrator's brain can be
>separated, then 'homicidal' portion also *must* be the one that
>houses the sense of self, the identity. Unlike the other two
>axioms-- no life after death, and eye for an eye, this axiom just
>might be overturned by future discoveries in neuropsychology.
This is not exactly what I meant, I am out to destroy the
personnality that caused the homicide, not that the homicidal part
is the self.
>When an axiom contradicts scientific findings, there emerges a
>conflict between it and the scientific method axiom. So, if
>evidence starts to accumulate that any human brain can be nudged
>into a state conducive to cold-blooded murder, or conversely if it
>is demonstrated that removing a particular tangle of neurons will
>make a person incapable of killing, that will open quite a can of
>worms, won't it?
>Please don't be offended by my cross examination, btw. I'm partly
>playing devil's advocate to learn more about your point of view.
Not at all......
I endeared myself to a philosophy prof in college by always willing
adopting the devils advocate personna in order to foster
discussion. I had friends who took his class years later and said
he often spoke of a former student who used to ignite the most
interesting discussions. My friend approached him after class and
was able to confirm it was indeed me he spoke of.
Most of the positions (opinions) I hold now are the opposite of
what I formerly believed. The result of just such discussions.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
Mars Society, www.marssociety.org
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT