From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 23:25:58 MDT
Samantha writes
> > It would be idiotic IMO to try to place probabilities on all
> > these possibilities or tendencies, so one should have to ponder it
> > and length, and perhaps talk to others to gain the advantage of their
> > thinking and experience before making a decision. Clearly, I ought
> > to go kill him if there is a very large chance he will ambush me
> > later. Moreover, since you bring up his past misdeeds, there looms
> > the large possibility that we should jail or execute this person.
> >
>
> No, this [ambush likely] scenario is not sufficient reason to kill another
> human being in a civilized society. What does talking to a bunch of other
> people have to do with the clear issues and principles at hand?
I think that you didn't get the hang of Barbara's examples. She
was not talking about civilized societies. (Otherwise, the simple
solution to her thought-experiments was to just call the police.)
> > It depends on a number of things: firstly, what do I gauge will be
> > this person's reaction to the fact that I have a shotgun and
> > am inclined to use it on him if he proceeds unjustly with his
> > machete? Let us suppose that this would sober him up, and moreover,
> > that he's not the type to sneak up on me and kill me later on. Then
> > moderation seems the best course.
>
> This is not moderation. It is simply sane. Blowing him away without
> sufficient evidence to convict on suspicion is highly unjust and itself
> criminal and actionable malice.
Perhaps you would like to go back and address the cases where
no one will use a judiciary to prosecute "actionable" and
malicious acts, but rather deal with the hypothesis that one
is living in a more primitive society.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 23:33:59 MDT