Harland, When it comes to believing words, I respect you too much to think it credible that you have really thought yours all the way through, when you say of Brian: "If you think the defense of 298,000,000 people can justify even one murder, I do not trust you in Federal office."
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but does this mean that YOU personally would NOT take one life in order to save 298 million? If so, I must disagree, based on nothing but basic logic, sans trolleys and fat men of any sort. Surely you would agree that, given two possible outcomes of a branching situation, a) that one should live and 298 million should die, or b) that 298 million should live and one should die, that b) is the preferable outcome? If not, why not? If b IS the preferable outcome, then if one has the opportunity to force it over the less preferable one, shouldn't one take on the responsibility to do so? If not, why not? Regards, Allen Rice --- In [email protected], Harland Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I cannot believe you mean your words, Brian Holtz. Now you only kill fat > men to stop trolleys, instead of always saving life. You must kill somebody > especially if it takes him by surprise. If one fat man wants to live, you > call it "selfishness". Then say everything is OK because trolleys never run > away like that. Do I understand you? Why don¹t you sense that killing is > wrong? What alternate universe do you live in? > > I do not approve of murder. So I never said that you could kill anybody, > including Hitler. I said that a soldier, at war against Hitler¹s Germany, > might kill its leader and even civilians around him, if necessary. Armies > fight in mutual self-defense. Soldiers may fire on enemies who do not > surrender. If they kill anybody outside of combat they commit a war crime. > You can never accept killing as an end in itself. How barbaric. > > If your trolley story never happens, it proves nothing. But you claim it > "slam dunk refutes" libertarians who do not believe in aggression. You even > call this murder an imperative, so I assume you would do so whenever you get > a chance. And the opportunity does come up every day. In the same essay, > the "Transplant Surgeon" faces the exact same dilemma. Should the good > doctor kill his healthy patient, so he can steal her organs and save several > lives? Again, I say "Never", like most people in the real universe. Do > you? Do you also call the patient selfish, because she wants to keep her > own organs? The doctor can save lives with her liver, lungs, pancreas, > kidneys, bone marrow, skin, heart, and more. Should he take them? Like > your slam-dunk push of a man to his death beneath the trolley, organ theft > surely refutes non-aggression. But few people in this universe will > approve. > > In fact, J. J. Thomson could not find anybody at all who would kill a > patient to steal her organs, either. > > http://www.uwec.edu/philrel/Prism/PRISM2002/page0036.htm > > You should not get these temptations to commit war crimes, or condone > transplant murders. So I do not support you for Federal office, Brian > Holtz. These issues matter in the real universe. They do not amuse me. > The Federal government makes such decisions with hundreds of thousands of > lives. It is nothing personal against you. > > Congressman Tom Lantos approved of a US helicopter blowing up an unarmed, > paralyzed, old man in a wheelchair at the door of a mosque. Calling him a > terrorist, Lantos implied the assassination saved other lives. I publicly > said that Lantos condoned murder, and I meant it. When the victim¹s > political party, Hamas, started winning elections, the government of Israel > murdered their leaders and jailed 22 of their elected members of parliament. > You only imagine slamming escape hatches on my fingers. The US government > and its allies really do commit murder and torture. They can kill Moslems > with impunity now. Will atheists come next? Will Libertarians follow? > > I already answered your trolley questions in previous messages, but I will > do it again, here. My answers do not differ from those of most people: > > 1. A man owns his own life never push him in front of a trolley > 2. When you operate a trolley, run over as few people as possible throw > the switch if that is your job > 3. Passengers do not have to steer the trolley yes, throw the switch only > if you want; the decision is between you and god > 4. Bonus question: People own their organs, too never kill anybody to > steal organs > > Since I only answered you in writing, I could not possibly have "mumbled" > anything. But I will tell you again: the answers do not change no matter > how many people get tied to the track. If you think the defense of > 298,000,000 people can justify even one murder, I do not trust you in > Federal office. > > Most people actually live by a non-aggression principle. They give the same > answers as I do. They will not push a man in front of a trolley, no matter > what. The philosophers argued over why people would not push him, not > whether people should murder him. Libertarians say that you own your own > life. Others may put it differently, but they all mean the same thing. The > Trolley Problem actually proves the validity of a zero aggression principle; > it does not refute it. > > Harland Harrison > > > > on 4/10/07 12:29 AM, Brian Holtz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Bruce Cohen wrote: > >> > >> BC> Brian is not advocating killing anyone, much less the 'innocent fat man' > >> in the trolley problem. <BC > > It's true that I'm not advocating killing anyone in our universe, because as > > far as I know it currently contains no runaway trolleys of the kind stipulated > > in the TP. But if it did, I would indeed advocate killing the fat man -- just > > as Harland said it would have been acceptable to kill an innocent baby that > > Hitler hypothetically always kept at his side if doing so were the only way to > > kill Hitler. > > > > Harland Harrison wrote: > >> > >> HH> The "Trolley Problem" which Brian Holtz tries to use to justify > >> aggression amounts to this: Do you push an innocent fat man in front of a > >> trolley, if killing him that way would save other people further down the > >> track? <HH > > No, that's a variant of the original TP. > >> > >> HH> The fat guy owns his own life; if he wants to stop the trolley he can > >> jump in front of it. <HH > > To hide behind the selfishness of the fat man in this variant is to blatantly > > dodge the moral dilemma of the original TP, in which the single innocent is > > tied to the tracks and cannot save the other five innocents. It's trivial to > > remove this escape hatch by stipulating that the fat man doesn't know (and > > can't be told in time) what you know about the situation. > >> > >> HH> Pushing the fat guy is legally murder. <HH > > Ethics is how we decide what laws to write, not the other way around. And > > another escape hatch clanks shut on Harland's fingers... > >> > >> HH> Philosopher Judith Thomson devised this problem because she thought > >> nobody would ever believe you should push the fat man in front of the > >> trolley. <HH > > Can you quote her saying she thought nobody would ever opt for pushing the fat > > man? I'd be surprised if she was that ill-informed. However, I wouldn't be > > surprised at all if you were confused on this point, since you were still > > saying nobody would push the fat man even after Kennita told you she would. > >> > >> HH> If you want to read about trolley massacre <HH > > Killing one innocent is hardly a "massacre". What starts to be a "massacre" > > is when you would sacrifice four extra innocents just to keep your hands > > clean. And when I asked you: "is there any number of innocents -- e.g. five > > billion -- that would change your answer to the Trolley Problem?", you mumbled > > something about "298,000,000". Now that's a massacre. > > > > The first message (810) you cited is systematically rebutted here > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/835> , and you have never > > responded to my systematic rebuttal > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/862> of the other > > message you cited -- in which I asked you for the fifth time: "So the hand of > > a bystander pushing the fat man's chest and thus causing him to die is > > strictly forbidden, but the hand of a bystander pushing a switch and thus > > causing him to die might be allowed, even though in both cases the bystander > > knows that the push will cause the fat man's death?" > > > > >
