From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 14:54:49 MDT
--- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 August 2003 08:13, Andrew L Clough
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > > Hmmm. Sometimes I think all too much real
> malice if forgiven by assuming
> > > stupdity.
>
> Oops. Should have been "is" rather than "if".
>
> > That may be, but how much more malice is generated
> through honest
> > mistakes?
>
> Malice by definition excludes bad results from
> honest mistakes. Malice
> requires deliberate harmful action.
I think you mistunderstood what he was saying.
Perhaps some initial harmful action is an honest
mistake, but how often is it the case that harmful
action is deliberately conducted in reply?
You have a good point, however it seems in general -
not solidly proven that I know of, though there have
been several studies leaning this way (e.g.,
Prisoner's Dillema overall optimal strategies) - that
it is better to err on the side of forgiving
intentional affronts, than on the side of getting
revenge for unintended harm. (Especially if it leads
to concentrating on how to recover from and/or prevent
harm, whether or not it is intended. For instance, a
government may promise not to burgle your house if you
leave the door unlocked, but if they have no reason to
come by that they claim is legitimate, what harm would
be done by leaving it locked while you're out?
Indeed, in that case, how would they even know,
without admitting their bad behavior? This theory is
behind laws that routinely get evidence thrown out of
court.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 13 2003 - 15:04:28 MDT