--- Ashish Gulhati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 18, 2005, at 3:30 PM, Martin Senftleben
> wrote:
>
> > crux. Hitler has spread his ideas for years, until
> he finally reached
>
> The ideas were originally Hegel's and Plato's.
I am not sure whether you have read any Hegel, or
Plato for that matter, but I dont remember either of
them suggesting that Jews and Polish people should be
eliminated.
>
> But just because someone is spreading some bad ideas
> doesn't
> mean they can be held responsible for some third
> party falling for
> them, and acting criminally on them.
Thats the get-out-jail card for politicians, isn't it?
That's still
> the acting party's
> responsibility, and nobody else's.
Well, in that case, we might as well up on
civilization of any kind. No international law, no
political ethics will hold in this case.
>
> Everyone has a brain.
Are you sure? I am sorry, but I do believe that there
is such a thing as accountability for thoughts and
actions. Most ethical standards I am aware of have no
problem with this.
If Mr. X fails to use his
> properly, and gets
> taken in by nonsense, that is Mr. X's failure alone.
> One can't pass
> the responsibility on to the bad ideas
No, not passing responsbility on - which I agree,
would be a terrible idea.
without
> instituting precisely
> the sort of thought control that is just about the
> Worst Idea ever -
> where only a centrally approved set of politically
> correct ideas may
> be expressed at all.
The argument is not about permission to express
certain ideas, it is about incitement to murder. You
see, you seem to believe that expression of ideas
happens on a level playing field where all ideas are
equal and no harm is done, as long as there are no
actions following from them. But how do you establish
such a level playing field in a political areana? To
take a slightly more harmless example, do the good
people in Kansas make a stab at a level playing field
by claiming that intelligent design and Darwinism are
just good ideas?
To believe that we can express such ideas without
expecting that someone will be acting on them leads to
the question whether such a space of exists. I think
it does, but it is fairly heavily circumscribed.
>
> > Who do you
> > (impersonal "you") want to hold responsible for
> setting fire to an
> > asylum of refugees, when the person who did it is
> obviously
> > brainwashed by another, strongly influencing
> person, who implanted
> > the idea that foreigners are bastards, just
> exploiting our goodwill
> > and misusing our hospitality?
>
> Everyone, brainwashed or not, is responsible for
> what they do.
> Brainwashing and "following orders" are no excuse
> for
> murder, nor are they inescapable compulsions.
No, Martin did not argue that they are excuses. He
argued in a slightly more subtle way that both
thoughts and actions are judged in the face of a
higher authority.
>
> People can have all sorts of whacky ideas, and even
> publish
> and disseminate them, but ideas are not actions, and
> only
> actions cause injury, and between ideas and actions,
> there's
> supposed to be a functioning human mind and
> conscience.
You are making a whole set of philosophical and
psychological assumptions, which I at present would
find very difficult disentangle. There are many who
would disagree if you said that the mind functions as
a barrier to actions. Brainwashing, if done well, can
lead to a person not being conscious of either
assumptions nor the resulting actions. But this is
another minefield.
>
> If there isn't, an animal mind in a human body is no
> better than
> any other dangerous animal you'd shoot without
> thinking twice.
Indeed, it is quite possible to reduce a person to
this state. My reaction is to imprison the person who
brainwashed him or her.
-Frank
>
> #!
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
