----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 7:03 AM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home...
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 08:32:14PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: > > > Erik, I was not being condescending or belittling you in any way when > > Yes, you were, even if you didn't realize it. Also, your comment about > the discussion going down hill while you were gone. Ha! That's not what > happened. You made several absurd comments. If it went downhill, that > was when it happened. > > > asked if you had children. Children change their parents in ways that > > could never have been anticipated. I could be wrong, but I think that > > you would view this issue in a different light if you had children. > Yes, you are wrong, again. Since I am capable of abstract thought > (hypothetical, whatever you wish to call it), it is irrelevant whether > I have children or not to how I think about a situation. Certainly my > judgement about what I would do in situations would not be nearly as > bad as you say yours would be. Just because you have trouble staying > rational does not mean everyone does. I've thought about this a while, and I think it is a more interesting question than you do. Let me lay out my logic. First, the "you haven't experience this, so you don't know" arguement. I've always found that is a partially true arguement. We all have the ability to abstract, so we can make some model of what our behavior will be under certain circumstances. If the circumstances are not far different from normal, the models work well. If they are quite different, we may find that we act differently than we expect, because our experiences are different from what we expect. Parenting is the most life changing experience I have gone through. There are a number of things I didn't think that I would do, that I ended up doing. The main reason for this is that I didn't have as full an understanding of the circumstances involved in parenting as I originally thought I did. Let me give you an example of this. My daughter, Amy, was at a low second story window when she was two years old. I told her to get away, and as she got up to do it, she lost her balance, tripped forward, and fell...hitting her head on an air conditioner below. I was calm at the time, and took her to the hospital to get her head stitched. Once it was over, I reacted. Ever since then, I have a fear of my kids and heights. I can take heights quite well, I just can't stand seeing my kids at the edge. So, I get nervous when they are at a second story railing, even though I can at the same time, calculate that the danger is in an acceptable range. Its a trueism of therapy that one cannot control one's feelings rationally. One can put limits on one's behavior, but overcoming a phobia is not just a matter of learning how to think rationally. Since my particular fear was well grounded, and strongly imprinted, I lived with moderating it, instead of being able to totally eliminate it. The other thing that I noticed is that my parenting didn't work out quite as I expected. Seeing other people's kids and knowing the theory of child psychology is helpful, but it isn't the same thing as actually parenting. One finds that one needs to discard theory when one actually acts. Having said that, I've often seen the arguement used as a "shut up, you have no idea" arguement. I disagree with that. I've been able to talk about my experiences with others that have not had those experiences and I don't dismiss their views. If someone makes a suggestion that I consider impractical, I point it out to them, but I don't reject their arguements out of hand. Even though I'm an experimentalist, I realize that theorists do have their place. :-) As far as his actions being logical; I cannot see how one can determine a priority list by logic alone. Lets give another example of the bank robbery scenario. Folks have been strapped with explosives and forced to go into a bank and demand money or else. I don't think that it is illogical to go along instead of refusing and being killed. I do think it is moral to sacarifice one's own life to save the lives of others...and if more than one life is saved, one can may a calculation based on all lives being equal to state that it is the logical conclusion that one should sacrifice one's own life. But, a person who values their own life more than they value anothers is not inherently illogical. A person who runs from a live grenade when he sees it instead of throwing himself on it to cut the number of dead to just one is not inherently illogical. She is not heroic, and it might be possible to call her cowardly, but I cannot see how someone who saves their own skin is acting inherently illogically. Given that, let us consider the case of a parent who values their children's lives over their own. That is not inherently illogical either. Although I don't know for sure what I would do until I face it, if you ask me would I rather watch my children die and live or die, knowing they would be fine, my reaction is the second choice, hands down. I think that many parents have this set of priorities. So, someone who sees a risk to their top priority may very well be willing to sacrifice any number of things that have secondary priorities. I think that it is reasonable for society to minimize this type of decision. You gave an example that paying off the kidnappers personally usually doesn't work...and I won't argue with that. It would be illogical to not follow the course of action with the highest probability of saving's one children if that were the goal. So a person, competently advised that this isn't a wise course, would be acting illogically if they went ahead anyways, becasue they were not acting in a manner that would best let them achieve their goals. What Gary was talking about, at least as I parsed the question, was different. Would he do things that would generally be considered immoral, like stealing other people's money, in order to save his childrens' lives. You did a good job of showing his example doesn't work under most circumstances. But, I think your critique doesn't adress his main point, he is willing to harm others by stealing in order to save his children's lives. Lets grant him the leeway of a gedunkin (sp) experiment here, because it allows us to see a point. Parents, such as Gary, are willing to harm society in order to protect their kids. I would argue that this is not an illogical set of priorities. IIRC, there are places where there have been rashes of kidnappings for money...as a means of financing rebels, terrorist, criminals...pick your name. I'd argue that it is better for the government to work to fight the kidnappings for money instead of working on a PR campaign to convince parents that they must let their kids die for the sake of society. > And you are foolish to talk about temporarily giving up other people's > liberties. That is a slippery slope that has often led to disaster. I thought about this, and its not so clear. Since Gary stated the Patriot Act was way over done, he has given bounds to his opinion. Taking his statement literally, I find that I can find examples where I'd agree to temporarily restrict everyone's freedom for safety. For example, I have little trouble with the grounding of all airlines for several days after 9-11. It clearly was a restriction on liberties. Teri and I, for example, couldn't take a trip we had scheduled. Temporary curfews in areas hit by disasters and the use of National Guard to restrict freedom of movement in those areas until conditions improve also sounds reasonable. Another one is checking for banned items at concerts. When its done on private property, and the folks are willing to offer one's money back, the potential for opression is much less of course. While I might want to bring food into a concert, I can see why they want you to buy their food. Also, I know how many knives are checked at the gate at, for example, a Lynard Skinner concert, and I'm just as glad that drunk guys had to check their knives....as well as their extra booze. So, I can think of a number of temporary restrictions on everyone's liberty in the name of safety that I'd find acceptable. I certainly agree that we both can find another large number of examples that perform exactly as you say. They are indeed steps down a slippery slope, just as allowing interrogators to use torture lite was a step down a slippery slope. I even think we could come up with general rules of thumb that would seperate a lot of cases into each bin. There will always be differences of opinion in a gray area, but I'd be surprised if you would think my examples presented a massive risk to our liberty. And I am certain that we agree that there are a lot of examples where it is a step down a dangerous path. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
