Slashdot Mirror
Texas Supreme Court Cites Mr. Spock
An anonymous reader writes "We always knew that Spock was wise and would probably make a pretty good judge, so perhaps it's a good thing to see the Texas Supreme Court citing Spock in a recent ruling, noting his wisdom in stating that 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.'"
It would of be amazing if Bones stood up and said "Come on spock it's a court room not a space ship"
Next up, neck-pinch as punishment.
Table-ized A.I.
I'm sure Mr. Spock would agree with that.
While as a Trekky, I like the reference. I hope that they referenced utilitarianism in the article and I hope that they recognize utilitarianism can be used to justify evil things including letting a few starve so everyone else can live. This may be realistic but its evil unless you are acting as spock and *SACRIFICING YOURSELF* to be one of the few helping the rest. If the rest are choosing you to die against your will, it's evil.
Utilitarianism negates free will, property rights and individuality when misapplied (and perhaps when correctly applied too).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
He would make the most logical decisions based on the current legislation. That's pretty good thing to have when you have a sane legislation, but it might strike back if the legislation is broken. I'd much rather have him as a legislator. Although his ingenuity might allow him to apply the laws more sanely.
Oh, and by the way, the captcha for this post is "anarchic". How poetic.
Even as the footnotes to the ruling indicate, Spock was merely referencing a classic work of English literature. One of the hallmarks of good literature, and good art, are that they reflect the sensibilities of the culture which created them. That's what allows people to identify with the work and the characters therein, as well as learn a great deal about now-dead cultures through surviving works. If not for Beowulf and the Exeter Book, then we would not precious little about the minds of the ancient Anglo-Saxons. Citing Dickens, who was nothing if not socially conscious, seems perfectly reasonable. The fact that more people have seen Star Trek II than have likely read Dickens is just a way to help get the point across.
If not for the Star Trek reference, this likely wouldn't have made it to Slashdot, however I honestly think that it's slightly disingenuous to relegate it to idle.
the judge lost his copy of John Stuart Mill?
...the rights of the few outweigh the interests, benefits, and even the needs of the many. "Democracy" is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I'd rather see the rights of the minority protected, regardless of the opinions of a given science fiction character - pointy ears or no.
So what you are saying is that Kodos the Executioner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodos_the_Executioner) was evil for killing people so that the rest would not starve? You could have just kept it all as a Star Trek analogy.
I thought Texas was Ferengi.
This story has no context. Without knowing what the decision was that they cited this on, there is no way for me to judge how appropriate this was or wasn't.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The judge obviously hasn't seen Star Trek III... Captain Kirk and his crew risk their lives to save Spock. And when he asks them why, Kirk replies "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many." And then Spock raises an eyebrow...
And as we see in the US, the needs of the 51% outweigh the needs of the other 49%. Ain't absolute democracy grand?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I was going to complain that the "Needs of the many..." thing is Pure Utilitarianism - but if you read the article you notice that its an actual citation. An actual reference to star trek, and the context of what happened in that scene.
The story about Kodos was a good one about taking "the needs of the many outweighing the needs of a few" too far.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
The needs of the few might outweigh the needs of the many. This all depends on what is in the group of the many and the group of the few. If you take a group of 100 normal individuals, and a group of 1 Richard Feynman, then the most intelligent thing to do is to sacrifice the 100 for 1 Feynman, since there is only about 1 Richard Feynman for 1 billion normals... So no, the needs of the many does not outweigh the needs of the few.
1 gram of gold > 1 ton of shit.
Although Mr. Spock's logic seems good to the human mind who can decipher right from wrong, it is also written that "Numbers did not win the war."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_philosopher_said_the_needs_of_the_many_outweigh_the_needs_of_the_few
"The needs of the many [WOLVES] outweigh the needs of the few [SHEEP]." Yup, utilitarian democracy sucks if you're a sheep... or black... or an illegal alien...
Refreshingly pompous: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm
As opposed to letting the rest starve so the few can live? Really not seeing the evil.
sudden outbreak of common sense
I think that another crucial point is that there is a time parameter on the needs/many/few breakdown.
It's amusing to revisit these ideas, especially entitlements, and watch needs/many/few be less constant than the purportedly smart people would have it.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
evil things including letting a few starve so everyone else can live.
As opposed to letting everyone starve? That's even eviler.
Utilitarianism negates free will
There is no such thing as free will in the first place.
property rights
If property rights cause more harm than good they should be abandoned.
individuality
Not sure what you mean here. Your individuality is a physical fact. Different people have different bodies, brains, and therefore minds. It's as if you said "Utilitarianism negates hair color". Nonsensical.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
>>>Utilitarianism negates free will, property rights and individuality when misapplied
Well said.
Also most people forget the SECOND half of the saying: "You were wrong Mr. Spock. We decided that the needs of the ONE outweigh the needs of the many. That is why we risked our lives to save you." - Captain Kirk. The American Confederation and later United States Constitution was founded on that principle. The individual matters.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Utilitarianism negates free will, property rights and individuality when misapplied (and perhaps when correctly applied too).
The needs of the many should not outweigh the rights of the few.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
John Stuart Mill, the utilitarian proponent, would say that harming a minority for the benefit of a majority would not be for the greatest good of the greatest number. Instead, Mill argues that the concepts of justice and individual rights emerge directly from the principle of utility. Violating individual rights, he says, more often leads to bad consequences than good, and individual rights as an unbreakable rule promotes the greater happiness.
He spends a large portion of his book on utilitarianism arguing this, so it's not a particularly new objection to utilitarianism.
You do realize that Austin has always been a hot bed of liberal and Unionist sentiment? It was a great hiding place for Confederate deserters during the War of Southern Independence.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
... in a reference to urgency, not expediency. I suspect he knew that the one/many discussion was a long-running theme in the show.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
The judges job is to enforce rule of law, not the "needs of the many."
Much of the constitution is written to protect minorities against "mob rule."
Yeah, I go there every couple of years. They have tons of libertarians as well tho. Anyways, my comment was a small joke.
Anybody who has read "Atlas Shrugged" knows that this is not true. Who will decide whether the need of the many really more important than the need of the few? And on what base?
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
Seriously, "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few", sounds like socialism......AND in Texas yet. Rush LImbaugh better sound the alarm bells.
Indeed that is an extreme example, and not quite a good one. But the evil part in that specific example would be who gets to choose who dies, and what criterion they use to decide.
A better example would be "letting a few people die so that millions can have an extra five minutes with their kids in the afternoon." From a strictly utilitarian point of view, it works out, because those extra minutes, multiplied by millions, balance out entire lifetimes.
Or, in the case of Kilo V. New London, the taking of land from a few worthless homeowners was justified to build a cool office space for Pfizer that they would've paid a lot of taxes on if they'd actually used it....
A less naive view of Utilitarianism realizes that establishing a fundamental property right that sometimes locally prevents just that sort of thing, has benefits society-wide.
And that's the downside of utilitarianism: it can be used to construct a framework under which almost anything appears ethical, even though a further refinement shows just the opposite. It's a problem, because people tend to stop looking any further once they have a reason why the thing they want to do is the "right" thing to do.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Utilitarianism negates free will
There is no such thing as free will in the first place.
Then why are you arguing with the poster about it? He (she) can't help but believe this.... ...of wait, you can't help it, can you?
Utilitarianism negates free will, property rights and individuality when misapplied (and perhaps when correctly applied too).
Meanwhile, free will, property rights, and individuality negate everything else when misapplied (and definitely when correctly applied too).
Everything is a tradeoff; that's life.
I'm just amazed that there's a court in the U.S. that doesn't subscribe to the opposite fundamentalist philosophy: sacrifice everything for the weakest. But given that one exists, I'm not surprised it's Texas.
While utilitarianism works in theory, the problem is that it only works in theory. It seems to make sense to say "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", but when you get down to it, who gets to make those decisions? As Dostoevsky showed, no one should try to play games with peoples' lives.
... or the one.
Remember.
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
There's no intelligent life here ...
There is no such thing as free will in the first place.
Bullshit. The fact that I could read your comment and reply, or not, in any manner I see fit negates your statement. I can choose to have wine or a beer or nothing with my supper tonight, or I could choose to go out and spend my money elsewhere. Etc. It's the asshats who want to predetermine or legislate your free will that are the problem.
If property rights cause more harm than good they should be abandoned.
I have the right to keep property that I've bought and paid for, as long as I don't abuse that right to harm other citizens. This comment is too general. (Case in point would be the tools that I use to fix other people's problems. Quite a few of those tools, including the knowledge in my head, could also be used to harm other people; but that is not the use I put them to. ) I suspect you were probably thinking of things like gene patenting or intellectual property - but you should clarify that.
Individuality is harmed by blanket laws that leave law enforcement and judges little option but to impose mandatory penalties despite mitigating circumstances. Many of the problems human society is experiencing right now stem from such laws.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
While I agree that utilitarianism can be misapplied, and I'd even go so far as to say that there are times when it is totally inappropriate, I'd like to point out that property rights are utilitarian.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Technically, they were quoting Gene Roddenberry and/or the writers of the show*, not Spock, who is a fictional character.
* Not entirely sure who wrote the script, hence... it reminds me of people who quote Prof La Paz from Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, when they should be quoting Heinlein ;-)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Actually they're not. There's considerable discussion of the simple sentiment, but it actually makes the point that certain things can only be justified if the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, not that that alone will justify an individual sacrifice.
Interestingly, nobody seems to complain when sacrifice is imposed for the sake of war - i.e. WWII. Why is only war, and not the human quality of life for all citizens, a worthy cause? Can we not build a society that rewards achievement _and_ protects those who have failed from utter ruin? Can we not have a utilitarian baseline of humane living conditions for all, and a capitalist economic engine that allows for the successful to rise (well) above the baseline? Also, why not these same concepts to protect the environment and other resources for future generations? Why is it only considered immoral to require some sacrifice when the goal is peaceful and just? This is not communism - this is a capitalist, socialist, utilitarian hybrid that works very well when implemented in good faith, and is basically the system we would have if it weren't for the constant undermining influence of the libertarian right in our government.
Yes, you've spoken well.
the opposite, is aristocracy, elitism. it doesnt matter how it happens ; whether a minority owns more than the majority, and/or rules them, it ends up as being feudalism.
in capitalism, this is provided by the inner mechanisms of capitalist system. free market just functions as a 'free for all' chaos environment in which a pecking order will get established in future. the 'better' competitors, however better they are (fair or unfair) get ahead, buy or subdue others (controlling shares), and increasingly control aspects of various industries.
if, nothing intervenes, then eventually after a while EVERYthing gets consolidated at the hands of a particular group. this may be as small as 4-5 people, just like in usa in late 19th century, or, it may be a group of conglomerates, which own and run aspects of life through proxies and conglomerate structure. (as in now).
it doesnt matter how it happens : as long as a minority group has ownership of the resources and amenities in a given nation, they are de facto rulers of that nation. it may end up through establishing an elite through birthright, it may happen through establishing mega conglomerates by fair competition, which then ends up getting inherited.
think : competition, is competition. eventually, some will do better than others, and get to top. if there is nothing controlling their power, they will establish a hierarchy. AND, because there is inheritance, the established pecking order will just get inherited to heirs, and it will practically be an aristocratic dynasty. it doesnt matter whether these people do it consciously, planned, and be aware of each other and what they are doing. it is automatic, subconscious, and just a mechanical result of the system.
the ONLY thing different now, from the medieval feudal aristocratic system is, everyone is supposedly allowed to attempt being aristocrats. 'supposedly' and 'attempt' words are in the preceding sentence, because they describe how little chance such a thing happening has ; if, in medieval times, everyone was allowed to just attempt setting up a feudal lordship, (instead of being through birthright), the newcomers would find it impossible to set a domain for their own, because established pecking order would overpower them. just like that, it is as such in capitalist system of today ; enter into a market, try to be someone, establish yourself. as soon as you get noticeable and become a competitor, you are either clamped down through 'competitive' means, or, bought out. if the two not avail, then you are coerced into the hierarchy that is present in your area, which is the sub hierarchy that rules nationwide.
RARELY, there happens 'wild west' situations. original wild west, was one. it was a chaotic, free for all environment, where there were noone established, and the established powers were far away and unable to reach and dominate it. in this free for all environment, first to come and to get on top, established themselves into various points in the newly occurring pecking order. then, this pecking order, eventually got integrated with the greater hierarchy of the entire nation.
AND a contemporary example ; the internet, i.t., digitization of the society was another such land rush, a wild west. it was new, it wasnt even taken seriously at the start, noone knew what was it and what was going to happen. opportunist people with ideas and ambitions have entered this area. just like all these wild west situations, it was a phenomenally free environment in which there was great opportunities, great freedom. practical 'nobodies' (compared to established conglomerate owners) got rich over years' time, sometimes days. in a brave free world, the capitalist system seemed to fulfill its promise. after all, there was opportunity for the lower strata of society, who didnt have any capital and any place in pecking order - people were getting rich, right ?
right.
look how long did it take for it to end and an established order to come up. a deca
Read radical news here
Took place on a military vessel that had replicators and a nearly unlimited energy source.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
But where does your right to property come from? It can't be religion. And if it comes from "the bill of rights", then it's just a social construct like the state.
Your right to property is a useful social construct, not a moral tenet.
Had he been, he would have known that the Constitution was constructed to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
There is a time parameter on everything.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
property rights
If property rights cause more harm than good they should be abandoned.
By your logic we can say the same thing about democracy, or any abstract human concept. Maybe your face does more harm than good to me, does that mean I can destroy it?
What I read from your post is that you think any evil done in the name of good is good: the means always justify the ends. Are you really so dense that you don't understand the context of the parent posts use of 'individuality'?
Which is not evil, since by your wording the choices are "let a few starve so everyone else can live" or "let everyone starve because you're not willing to let anybody die first." I'm not saying it would be easy to decide (personally or from a ethical system standpoint) who should live and die in such a circumstance, but it is hardly a failure of utilitarianism.
The major problem with utilitarianism is actually fairly obvious: "The greatest good for the greatest number" is really hard to define. Just as an example: Let's say there is you and four of your friends. Is it the greatest good for the greatest number to kill you and distribute all of your positions evenly among the other four people? Four people are very happy and one isn't, but the one that "isn't happy" is actually dead --which is quite a lot of harm to balance against a relatively small amount of good. But there's really nothing in the system that says "+4 -1" is any less a valid way to approach the ethicality of the situation than "+(4 * 10) -(1 * 1000000)." There's nothing in the system--even though I think we all know it is wrong--to cause you not to question, "well, how much money are we talking about here?" or "how poor are my friends?" or something like that.
A lot of the problems, by the way, are solved with what's called "rule utilitarianism," which basically removes consideration of the individual act and steps back to creating a rule based on how much good or ill is caused by the rule. It would stomp on the "murder-for-profits" thing if for no other reason than once they kill you, there nothing stopping them from following the same act utilitarianism that led them to do so to pick and kill another person off. In other words, if everybody were allowed to operate under that rule the greatest good for the greatest number is not achieved.
It has nothing to do with free will, it's simply a system for deciding morality or ethicality. How you ultimately act can be guided by a system of morality but it isn't decided by it. If utilitarianism negates free will, then so do laws against murder if I really, really want to kill somebody.
Where is your refutation? He makes a good point. Blacks are the only racial group to vote as a virtual bloc. It is popular to make the claim that whites are conspiring to keep some sort of mythical "institutional white privilege" but it can't be substantiated on the same basis.
If you read the entire court decision, you'll see that they point to this Spockian utilitarianism as something to be wary of. Their decision was actually to reverse just such legislation.
Property is a right. It is more right for an individual to own property and to suffer the consequences of it's use/misuse than it is for that property to be collectively owned and for everyone to suffer those consequences collectively. Property ownership leads to better outcomes both on average and individually. In addition to being morally superior, it also happens to be the most effective and efficient method of directly linking individual behavior to both positive and negative consequences, more efficient than parenting or any form of government intervention known to man.
tyranny of the majority ?
It could be worse. At least they're not citing the Bible for their precedents. This time, anyway.
Well, say the majority decide that we need to kill people who post anonymously to protect ourselves from terrorists.
We track down your IP and kill everyone associated with it. Because, our needs outweigh your needs.
I just makes sense. You're right, I don't see why this would be evil.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
A lot of those footnote comments in legal opinions are put in there not by the judges writing them, but by their clerks typing them up, who end up with the task of looking up all the citations.
I once read one by a judge who was notorious for never following up on what his clerks cited, so they would try to one-up each other by seeing what they could get away with. When the opinion noted that the plaintiff's version of events didn't jive with other records, the accompanying citation read, "'Can't seem to face up to the facts.' Byrne, D., Stop Making Sense"
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
If Texans cited Star Trek at least as often as they cite the Bible, Texas, the US and actually the whole would be a happier place...
"the needs of the money, outweigh the needs of the few"
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
I sincerely hope they apply this to DRM and copyright law...the needs of the many (consumers) outweigh the needs of the few (millionaires and billionaires). In reference to this, Taylor Swift's new album is expected to sell nearly 1 million records over this, its debut weekend...what's the deal with, um, what is it again--oh yeah, piracy is killing the record business?
There is no such thing as free will in the first place.
Bullshit. The fact that I could read your comment and reply, or not, in any manner I see fit negates your statement. I can choose to have wine or a beer or nothing with my supper tonight, or I could choose to go out and spend my money elsewhere. Etc. It's the asshats who want to predetermine or legislate your free will that are the problem.
One could also argue that in the end, your actions (including thoughts) are determined by the laws of physics, and therefore, free will must be an illusion.
If property rights cause more harm than good they should be abandoned.
I have the right to keep property that I've bought and paid for, as long as I don't abuse that right to harm other citizens. This comment is too general. (Case in point would be the tools that I use to fix other people's problems. Quite a few of those tools, including the knowledge in my head, could also be used to harm other people; but that is not the use I put them to. ) I suspect you were probably thinking of things like gene patenting or intellectual property - but you should clarify that.
In the society we live in - yes, you do have that right. But ours is not the only possible society. The concept of property only emerged when humans began to settle down, so it can't be something inseperably linked to human nature. It must be allowed to assess, in a philosophical sense, whether this concept is still useful in serving society as a whole (as opposed to only serving a relatively small number of people).
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
Will it embrace IDIC?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This can also be used by tyrants when exploiting the weak or poor
The thought came to us from Caiaphas, the High Priest mentioned in the Gospel of John. In John 11:49-50 the Apostle John wrote, "And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."
But, I prefer to think it was Spock who came up with it...
It is more right for an individual to own property and to suffer the consequences of it's use/misuse than it is for that property to be collectively owned and for everyone to suffer those consequences collectively.
But it is right for an individual to own (and therefore control) property, yet everyone to suffer the consequences collectively?
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
Oddly, I'd say that the American Revolution was founded on the principle of the many outweighing the few.
The many being the many people of the Americas, the few being the people overseas who were telling them what to do instead.
So you agree, in principle that you have no rights and no basis to argue against any decision by others.
No-- choosing a subset who dies is evil.
If you can engage people's free will, then it's not evil.
Examples, if we say, "We need three volunteers to die so everyone else can make it" and you get three volunteers, then you were not evil.
If you don't ask, but three people volunteer, also not evil.
And finally, if some subset up to 100% agree to die based on a lottery- then three die as a result of the lottery, it's not evil.
---
We have to disagree on free will. You are wrong, but you can't see it. But hey, that's your free will in action so I can't stop it.
---
I tend to agree with you on the property rights thing. Property rights are good but exceptions develop. Taking a person's property isn't the same as killing them. However, if you want a stable society, you should have some kind of property rights.
However, property rights are not a natural right like "the natural right to pursue property" or "the natural right to think however you like". A natural right can't be granted by the government and it can't be taken away by the government.
I wish we had two words- one for natural rights and one for agreed upon rights.
---
Utilitarianism eliminates respect for the individual. It allows any group to do anything to any one. It is anti-golden rule. (and by that i mean, treat others as they wish to be treated as long as it doesn't violate how you wish to be treated or to act).
---
Our rights are a balance between negotiated rights (really tyranny of the majority) and natural rights (which can't be taken away except by killing you or (some) by imprisoning you (maybe- it's very hard to take away your right to pursue happiness. You can find happiness just about anywhere under any conditions)).
In general we set certain limits to protect ourselves as well. We grant rights because we want those rights ourselves.
---
You may be speaking a bit more philosophically than me in the end tho. I'm an old fart and tend to be pragmatic about such things.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
In a trivial example, in any case where a larger (2+) group of people I care about will die and i can stop it by sacrificing myself to save them, their needs outweigh my needs. This could be my family, my friends, a bunch of children, a bunch of women (I'm just old fashioned I guess-even if they were lesbians- can't help myself), etc., etc.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
How so? They seem like an individual right and in many cases, an individual with property rights thwarts the desire of a larger group to put up a hotel or ski lodge, drill for oil, etc.
(seriously interested- what's the utilitarian argument for property rights?)
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It seems to me that the phrase "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is a dangerous statement to believe in as, taken to the extreme, the few get trampled upon ... unless it is the few who say it. In that case, it is very noble indeed. And that is the context in which Spock uttered his statement.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Choosing to let everyone starve is the good choice if all decide to starve and none decide to sacrifice themselves. That the entire group dies isn't an evil event since no one's consent was violated.
Choosing a few to die involuntarily (against their informed consent) is evil.
---
Interesting point on the nothing to do with free will.
My personal morality system reflects here. Essentially, if a rational (not drugged, drunk, or obviously insane) individual gives informed, uncoerced consent, then the act isn't evil. If they are not informed, or irrational, or coerced then it's evil even if they said yes if they would have said no otherwise. And if they don't get a choice but they would have said no, it's also evil.
So what I'm saying is that Utilitarianism allows legitimately violating the informed consent of one or a few by the larger number of people if has a good argument that they will benefit. "The two of us will die, but if we kill you, we will live. By Utilitarianism, we have the right to kill you to save ourselves."
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
That is just an awesome example!
Wish you hadn't posted anonymously.
Yes, he was evil. And he was presented as evil and full of remorse.
The only exit for him was suicide.
I could see either volunteering to kill yourself or taking the evil/harsh route and killing the 10% that needed to be killed to save everyone and then killing yourself.
Killing everyone and then living on-- pretty much pure evil.
The only case where an exception is made is in the military where you understand in advance that your officers may have to make orders like that. Since you "sort of consented in advance" it's acceptable unless the commander is being careless.
To some degree, we the citizens by voting and continuing to reside in our countries may "sort of consent in advance" to our civilian authorities making hard choices like this as well. But we tend to bust their asses for it afterwards unless they handle it perfectly.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
One could also argue that in the end, your actions (including thoughts) are determined by the laws of physics, and therefore, free will must be an illusion.
Quantum physics allows for indeterminate solutions ;-)
On a more realistic note, if there was no such thing as free will, then science would never have developed anything. No thinking "outside the box" allowed ;-) (philosophy has never been one of my strong subjects, because I think most of it is an illusion produced by people exercising free will...)
In the society we live in - yes, you do have that right. But ours is not the only possible society. The concept of property only emerged when humans began to settle down, so it can't be something inseperably linked to human nature. It must be allowed to assess, in a philosophical sense, whether this concept is still useful in serving society as a whole (as opposed to only serving a relatively small number of people).
The concept of "property" is extremely common amongst living things, particularly higher organisms. Most species above the level of bacteria have territorial behaviours that are comparable to human behaviour.
I really love the current scientific debate about "altruism". It has the potential to actually show how our species can be less destructive than animals which don't have the opportunity to steal from their fellows and the other species they compete with.
(/sarcasm on multiple levels)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
That isn't even a dilemma, if the choice is a few or everybody (including said few) then you're not even sacrificing the few, they're dying anyway so you can only be said to be saving the others.
It turns into a dilemma when you have an option to save the many which involves causing a few other innocent passers-by to die. This is much more interesting, with so many potential permutations with which to examine our resolve. Though rather morbid if we keep death central to our test.
Neither scenario is really relevant to utilitarianism though. A more common criticism is similar to saying that allowing a few to starve so that many people can live significantly better. Like, if it's -1,000 utils for starving someone, but 100 people benefit by 10 utils then the act under utilitarianism could be said to be morally neutral. It's a silly argument because you're criticising the weighting and measurement applied, not the logic behind the principle. All you need to do is say that starving someone is -1m utils and then you don't want to answer now that the question is whether it's worth 100,000 people living in misery just so that 1 can stay alive.
But utilitarianism should never be some attempt to turn morality into maths, no matter how accurate you think you can make the equation and the measurements involved. It's an attempt to introduce a relatively objective guide, something you can use to test the choice you have made by looking at it from a different perspective and seeing if you're still OK with it.
and here it lies the false dichotomy:
there are no "rights of the few" in a fair society, every one has the same right so that is why individuals matter: because no individuals are above the others.
if the society is unfair instead, there is no need to come up with heroic rhetorics to justify stepping over people right. that's fascism plain and simple and we know how well it worked for them.
A person's 'natural' right to property is limited only to what he can personally defend against others who might try to take it. Anything beyond that is purely based upon other people recognizing my claim, which they are not obligated to do, and may only do when it is in their own interest.
That an individual might claim to own a particular piece of property doesn't mean that property law generally is founded on individuals.
Your example of a single person fighting against a large and presumably unscrupulous group to keep their land only works when the single person can call upon the resources of a much larger group -- law enforcement, the judicial system, the army, etc. -- for aid. Consider the difference between someone being forced off their land at gunpoint by brigands, and someone being forced off their land via a foreclosure by a bank. Not only will the local sheriff not defend the second victim, he is apt to be called in to help kick him out. And if invulnerable aliens landed there the next day and disintegrated anyone who crossed the property line, the aliens would own it, because a good disintegration gun is worth a lot more than a mere property deed.
It's not pretty, but this is how property law ultimately works when you get down to the bottom of it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I knew you would say that
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
I interpret "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" as being something that might have been said by Karl Marx. The original article doesn't really go into the context of the court case, but it is intereting that this came from Texas which conjures up images of rugged individualism.
------
www.moneybythenumbers.com
I don't share your interpretation. In the movie, Kirk, Scott, Sulu, Chekov and McCoy go to find Spock body in order to perform a Vulcan ritual to free Spock's katra which he "uploaded" into McCoy's mind before dying and also to prevent McCoy from becoming crazy, and in order to do this they have to desobey superior's orders, steal the Enterprise and sabotage another ship, which is likely to bring them to Martial Court.
So it's more in my opinion about friendship and loyalty among the crew of the USS Enterprise, and not about the US constitution; it's just people who say that, as individuals, they are willing to take risks to save one of them.
The principle on which the US constitution was founded is the protection of individual rights and freedom. But for the rest, as any other country, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". That's why the US has an army, some tens of thousands of people who are ready to die and whom the government is willing to sacrifice in order to protect hundreds of millions.
Your right to property is a useful social construct, not a moral tenet.
No, it isn't religion, I've been an atheist for more than a quarter of a century, so maybe I'm out of touch. Honesty in exchanges between mutually consenting beings is still moral, as far as I know ;)
Social construct? Perhaps. I doubt that the first caveman who shared fire with his neighbors would have thought of it that way (although perhaps that's where the concept of trade came from).
Since then we've made it into an industry for parasites. That was probably inevitable, and has had it's detractors over the millenia, as well.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Don't let the gestalt decide your commentary for you, then. You could have dissented.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Utilitarianism negates free will, property rights and individuality
I agree! This "needs of the many" crap needs to be unpacked. The best system is when the many are sacrificed to the needs of the few and I'm one of the few.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument you are right on both your claims. That is 1) Blacks vote as a bloc, and 2) they are the only racial group to do so.
The great majority of Black voters once supported the Republican party, before switching towards the Democratic party. Do you really think that Blacks were overwhelmingly Republican and all switched in a single election cycle to stay in a bloc? It would seem pretty obvious from a little history that even if there is a strong, even monolithic Black voting bloc right now, that hasn't always been the case, since Blacks gained the right to vote. There have been times when the Black vote has been quite divided, and there are still elections and issues where it tends to divide more. There were specific circumstances (do a search for Richard M Nixon, Southern Strategy), that tended to create and then reinforce bloc voting for Blacks. On your second point, there have not been any situations that would tend to encourage similar bloc voting for, say, Hispanics and Asian Americans. You might note that there are non-racial groups (GLBT), that tend to also vote more as blocs than the other major group of the same sort criterion (Straight), again for similar reasons.
Who is John Cabal?
Both Gene Roddenberry and Robert Heinlein are well known for stating their opinions on culture and society in their fictional writings.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
When much of current society and culture is based off of lies and hypocrisy, I guess that any argument which points that out really is flamebait - it invites debate.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
*cough*
If there's no such thing as free will, there's no such thing as evil. Just saying.
Thank you for pointing out that trying to define all actions as either good OR evil is a flawed, and EXTREMELY subjective means of viewing the world. One man's terrorist really is another man's freedom fighter,.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
"That's even eviler."
It's comical that you pretend to have worthwhile knowledge when you cannot
even use correct English.
God damn, I am sick of twits like you.
You need to become more educated before you start acting like you have an education.
Don't you mean more evil? [b]eviler isn't a word![/b]
It must be noticed that Spock "himself" uses such logic to justify his sacrifice. It would be a totally different thing if he were to be pushed into the room with someone saying those magic words.
We let some starve now for the benefit of many, and the great benefit of a few. Is that also evil? Property rights do something similar, as does military conscription.
Rawls seemed to answer many of the objections to utilitarianism with his rule utilitarianism. Of course, no ethical theory conforms perfectly to our moral sense, but I guess ours differs profoundly to that of our grandfathers.
Actually, it isn't pure utilitarianism, unless one takes a very narrow definition of "needs". Utilitarianism would also be concerned with how severe the consequences would be if the various needs were not met, whereas Spock's maxim only looks at how many people have needs. So if we took Maslow's hierarchy of needs, for example, Spock's maxim would allow the many to deprive the few of primary needs (such as the need to breathe) in order to satisfy their need for esteem or self actualisation. Actually, it could be as bad if you just stayed at the physiological level of Maslow: the many could stop the few satisfying their need to breathe in order to satisfy the majority's need for sex. In other words it's far far worse than utilitarianism. It's very democratic, though.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Property ownership leads to better outcomes both on average and individually.
Whose version of "better"?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
"That's even eviler."
No, it isn't.
Clearly the people who are willing to do evil to perpetuate themselves are less deserving to live. What you are clearly saying is that might is right, and the ends justify the means, for you.
Similarly, you're also saying that you are of a group that not a single individual would volunteer themselves to die for the rest of the group. Instead, you'd force it upon someone else, not by their choice or self-determination.
So then, are you somewhat healthy? I hear most people have 2 kidneys, plenty of marrow, and blood. Most whole organs can be reduced in sized and parceled out as a donor. I think as you are someone complaining that it isn't evil, that you've volunteered yourself to be put on a slab, and gutted. We'll leave you enough organs for your survive, and your quality of life won't be _too_ bad.
The list of people who need organ transplants, they'd be better served having your organs than you. Don't mind that not all of them have led clean lives themselves, some even have caused their own health concerns. Own up, since that IS the argument you are making--you are neither the hero, volunteer, martyr, or moral.
"There is no such thing as free will in the first place."
Come over here and I'll demonstrate it for you.
"Nonsensical."
Individuality in the context he's stating is that of the makeup of the person, and is often used to cite expression of one's will. While inclusive of physical attributes, it's not limited only to them. Individualty also includes expression of that physical makeup as well as general will and creative expression. But your response is understandable, given that you don't believe in free will.
Most people would understand what he said. You on the other hand are being a prick in pretending that you don't. But we're on /., this is typical. Then again, you are someone who'd force everyone else to die to further yourself, which is pretty damn sick.
That's OK I'd sacrifice you to get hooked up with 2 lesbians as well. Actually I'd sacrifice you to save all those other groups of people.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
That is just an awesome example!
It's a crappy example. Had Kodos known that there was a supply ship about to land, he would never have killed those people. Roddenberry was pointing out that the difference between being remembered as evil or as good can often come down to a roll of the dice.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
One could also argue that in the end, your actions (including thoughts) are determined by the laws of physics, and therefore, free will must be an illusion.
Quantum physics allows for indeterminate solutions ;-)
Of course it does. I included quantum physics, as to the best of our (collective! see?) knowledge, it adequately describes (some aspects of) reality. The fact that the same initial conditions need not always lead to the same outcome is, IMHO, tangential to the question of free will.
On a more realistic note, if there was no such thing as free will, then science would never have developed anything. No thinking "outside the box" allowed ;-)
But whose free will is it? That of a bunch of atoms mashed together in the right way to come alive? How are their interactions not subject to the laws of physics (with all their quantum indeterminism)?
(philosophy has never been one of my strong subjects, because I think most of it is an illusion produced by people exercising free will...)
I'm not much of a philosopher either, so I guess my questions in this regard have been answered in dozens of different ways, contradicting each other and themselves, and I just don't know it. While I find philosophy interesting and fun to think about, it also often lacks direct consequences for everyday life. And I don't know anywhere near enough about it to ask any meaningful (as in new, unanswered) questions.
I know that I know nothing. ;-)
The concept of "property" is extremely common amongst living things, particularly higher organisms. Most species above the level of bacteria have territorial behaviours that are comparable to human behaviour.
But is territory really comparable to property? AFAIK animals only claim (and defend) the territory they need to survive, either alone or in a group. They don't (again AFAIK) have the tendency to claim ever bigger territories and use social constructs to defend them.
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
are far too often confused with the needs of corporations or government. I just thought i would clear that up.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
But where does your right to property come from? It can't be religion. And if it comes from "the bill of rights", then it's just a social construct like the state.
The bill of rights doesn't grant you any rights, rather it codifies the protection of already existing rights.
In the early discussions between Prof, Manny and Wyo in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Prof poses a question that is the inverse of this. Manny replies that there is nothing the state can do that overrides Manny's best interests. I don't have the book at hand right now, but it's a great discussion, and should be on the required reading list of every student and prospective political candidate.
I find it without uncertainty that the Texas Supreme court would not order the deaths of a "few" as necesary to preserve the lives of the many Rebublicans who disperatly need to kill those who are not of their race in order to maintain their evil livelyhoods, evil ambitions and evil lives. Evil is as evil does. If the Texas Supreme Court does, then Evil they are.
"the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
You've got to be VERY careful with that statement, because slave owners agreed with that line of thinking, too. The needs and rights of ALL need to be taken into consideration, not just the majority. As a civilized democracy, we are responsible for the needs of the few as well as those who make the decisions. We believe that all men were created equal, don't we? Getting carried away with simplistic, jingoistic dogma can be very, very dangerous.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Much like Decatur's "My country, right or wrong", which most blindly quote without the rest of the idea, later articulated by Sen. Carl Schurz: “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/my_country,_right_or_wrong
Utilitarianism negates free will
There is no such thing as free will in the first place.
If we're going to play like that... There is no such thing as YOU, therefore I win. Argument over!
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
For good reason. Unlike corporations in 2010, who are considered "full persons" there was a time when blacks were only considered a few fifths of a person. There is power in unity, and they enjoy it so much when folks like you get all red in the face and angry because you can't say the n-word like you used to.
It's logic like this that really makes me glad we have a Second Amendment.
Of course it does. I included quantum physics, as to the best of our (collective! see?) knowledge, it adequately describes (some aspects of) reality. The fact that the same initial conditions need not always lead to the same outcome is, IMHO, tangential to the question of free will.
Do you have a better explanation for the wide variation of human behaviour? Tangential? I don't think so. As you pointed out, we are governed by the same physical processes that govern the rest of the universe.
I think you need to question your basic assumptions a bit closer. No offence meant.
I know that I know nothing. ;-)
I know nothing but what I observe...
But is territory really comparable to property? AFAIK animals only claim (and defend) the territory they need to survive, either alone or in a group. They don't (again AFAIK) have the tendency to claim ever bigger territories and use social constructs to defend them.
If what you said was true, then animals would not expand into new territories that would force them to evolve; which is obviously false.
BTW, humans are just animals - evolved ones, perhaps, but still just animals. There is little that differentiates us from the rest of the life on this planet other than our technology.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
There is no such thing as free will in the first place.
That being the case, what is the purpose in arguing the point at all?
There is no such thing as free will in the first place.
Bullshit. The fact that I could read your comment and reply, or not, in any manner I see fit negates your statement. I can choose to have wine or a beer or nothing with my supper tonight, or I could choose to go out and spend my money elsewhere. Etc. It's the asshats who want to predetermine or legislate your free will that are the problem.
It depends on your definition of "free will." David Hume said that people believe in free will because they remember when they acted a particular way and imagine they might have acted differently; whereas others who know them could have predicted they would have acted just as they did.
One's personality is a constraint on one's actions, and personalities develop under particular social and material circumstances. If personality wasn't a constraint, no one could predict even their own actions, nor take responsibility for them after the fact; actions would be random.
So you either have to define "free will" in such a way as to acknowledge that the will can never be entirely free of any constraint, or else reject the concept of "free will." The latter approach makes it difficult to describe what it is we want when we want to eliminate constraints upon our actions; the former approach requires a complex definition for what seems at first a simple concept.
Since Utilitarianism is not a spock thing and he simply quoted the axiom in the movie, it is hardly quoting Spock to quote the phrase.
Do you have a better explanation for the wide variation of human behaviour? Tangential? I don't think so. As you pointed out, we are governed by the same physical processes that govern the rest of the universe.
I meant tangential to the question of whether or not free will exists. Obviously it's not tangential to the outcome as manifested in observable behaviour. In both cases (including or ignoring quantum physics) this outcome is determined by physics - the only difference is a probabilistic element if you include quantum physics.
Or is it this randomness which you call "free will"?
I think you need to question your basic assumptions a bit closer. No offence meant.
No offence taken.
AFAIK animals only claim (and defend) the territory they need to survive, either alone or in a group. They don't (again AFAIK) have the tendency to claim ever bigger territories and use social constructs to defend them.
If what you said was true, then animals would not expand into new territories that would force them to evolve; which is obviously false.
I assume you mean the behaviour of species as a whole, otherwise I'm not sure I follow your logic. I was talking about individual specimen.
BTW, humans are just animals - evolved ones, perhaps, but still just animals. There is little that differentiates us from the rest of the life on this planet other than our technology.
Of course, I should have been clearer. I meant non-human animals.
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
Natural rights are not equivalent to the law of the jungle. Locke pretty clearly spells this out.
This seems to be a major stumbling block for non-libertarian types, but there are layers of nuance between "do anything you want" and "democratic government".
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
All my unfortunately absent mod points go to you, kind sir.
Sob. The Klingons would call this a good day to die.
what's the utilitarian argument for property rights?
All rights are utilitarian.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
"It's comical that you pretend to have worthwhile knowledge when you cannot
even use correct English."
Damn ignorant Plato... how could he pretend to have worthwhile knowledge when he couldn't even use correct English?
Would you rather that for the purposes of apportionment Blacks were counted as a whole person, therefor giving southern slave states more power in Congress? Counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person was a compromise that allowed agreement on a constitution yet still limited the power of slave states. I would have much preferred that the constitution prohibited slavery from the beginning, but my second choice would have been to have slaves not be counted at all, if they weren't given the right to vote.
"Duty, n: What one expects from others. -- Oscar Wilde"
The Universe may be malevolent, but it still enjoys a good joke or two.
I meant tangential to the question of whether or not free will exists.
That you can even argue whether free will exists, implies free will.
As to whether it exists in individuals, I think you are going to have to figure that out for Yourself.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
The fact that I could read your comment and reply, or not, in any manner I see fit negates your statement
You read my comment and you replied. I do not believe that you could have done otherwise. I challenge you to show that you could.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
First off, Captain Kirk said no such thing. I even fast forwarded the movie to make sure. He did hint at that idea, but that is not a quote from Star Trek.
Second, you all seem to be confusing NEEDS with WANTS and with RIGHTS.
Wants are desires that are completely optional. They have no bearing on this discussion.
Needs are things that are REQUIRED for a purpose. The question then is, is the purpose SO important that the process needs to continue if it affects others negatively. if the answer is Yes, then the next question is, how much of an effect will it have on the individuals and is that sufficient to outweigh the benefits. In this case, you can argue that saving 1000 people warrants hurting 1 person.
Rights are something that cannot be infringed upon, regardless of what the consequences are. They are defining principles of our entire society, so if you ignore someone's rights, there is no society, no law and no recognition of what makes us civilized. Therefore, all rules break down and nothing applies. So you cannot allow RIGHTS to be infringed upon, otherwise we cease to be a civilization and nothing is important anymore. You cannot, in this situation, argue that saving 1000 people is more important than a single life. That single life is entitled to the same rights as every other single life out there, regardless of how many single lives there are.
So it depends on how you define the above terms, really.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I actually chose to say it that way because I liked the way it sounded, "even eviler". Technically incorrect, but it amused me. I was surprised to see that Firefox didn't redline "eviler".
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
In Search for Spock, there was a convincing argument that the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
We see this in our system of criminal justice (at least in its theoretical form) where letting a guilty man go free is preferable to convicting an innocent man. Theoretically speaking I mean.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
QED
Per the WIki,
After doing some investigation on the ship's computer, he discovers that former Governor Kodos had ordered the executions of more than half Tarsus IV's population after the food supply was all but destroyed by a fungus. He also uncovers evidence that Kodos applied his own personal theories of eugenics when he chose who lived or died. Furthermore, the vital resupply ships that could have saved the whole colony arrived much sooner than Kodos had anticipated rendering all the executions unnecessary.
---
He ordered half of the population involuntarily killed based on his personal preferences. Think of that in earth terms, 3 billion people murdered.
The timing of the arrival of the resupply ship arrival doesn't matter. Even if they'd arrived when the population was down to 1 billion from subsequent starvation, the initial murder of 3 billion people would have been evil.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
That's bullshit. Someone who blows up teenagers is a terrorist. Doesn't matter if they are on my side or your side.
Unless your ethical system allows murder, torture, rape, genocide, mass murder, organ-legging, there are lines at which "freedom fighter" stops.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Well, I'm no Lockean, or libertarian, for that matter.
But when we are unable to form effective governments to pursue the collective good, the law of the jungle is what we're stuck with. And any government is going to require that people are constrained from doing whatever they want; otherwise, why bother?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
There is always a random element.
For example, in this case, I decided to exercise my free will by randomly selecting a statement from this set to respond to.
I could have decided afterwards, to disregard the dice roll as well (this is often how I make decisions when I lock up. I number the possibilities, randomly roll. If I find the roll acceptable (most often) but some times, when I see the roll, I realize i don't like that result and choose a different one.
Likewise, you can have someone who seems to be constrained by their particular social and material circumstances, and yet out of 100 similar people, they behave differently. You can predict the actions of populations, but you can't predict the actions of individuals except probabilistically.
Put another way, if you offered people a $20 bill, some would always reject it, some would always take it, but in the middle the rest would be unpredictable.
Despite all constraints, people sometimes do not even choose "a", "b", or "c" but instead choose "5". We wouldn't have creativity without free will.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Aristotle, 250 BC, "The Aim of Man": "Even supposing the chief good to be eventually the aim for the individual as for the state, that of the state is evidently of greater and more fundamental importance both to attain and to preserve. The securing of one individual's good is cause for rejoicing, but to secure the good of a nation or of a city-state is nobler and more divine."
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
But when we are unable to form effective governments to pursue the collective good, the law of the jungle is what we're stuck with.
Governments don't exist to "pursue the collective good". You're perfectly capable of doing that yourself.
I am a lawyer
Oh, nevermind.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
What if, say, there were two people who needed organ transplants. You match both perfectly. If you don't donate, two die. If you do, you die, but they'll live full lives. Assume the organs required are vital, and such a donation would be allowed under prevailing law.
If you decide you'd rather live, can society then intercede for the numerically greater good?
Spock's simple philosophy sounds good, and probably works really well for bees, but in real life, it has...issues.
The timing of the arrival of the resupply ship arrival doesn't matter.
Sure it does. In fact, that's the point, that good and evil are not as absolute as some would like them to be. We consider Kodos' actions as purely evil, in spite of the fact that he was trying to save as many people as he could. How he chose them is not all that relevant ... would you have preferred a roll of the dice? How about a computer algorithm that determines the people most likely to survive famine? In the end, just as many people would still be dead. Kodos was not like Colonel Greene, who killed for pleasure: Kodos used mass-murder as a survival tactic. Not quite the same thing, and Kodos himself ended a broken man.
A Klingon, or a Romulan, would likely consider Kodos a hero for what he tried to do, and would certainly not consider him "evil". More than a few human cultures would be less than horrified at such actions: the Western perspective on such things is not shared by everyone you know, human life is not always looked upon the same way.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Sacrificing someone else is murder. Different definition of sacrifice.
I can choose to give up my life to save them. You can choose to give up your life to save them. If I choose to give up your life to save them without your consent, it's evil. (and some argue that I can't take your life without your consent- you have to take it yourself).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I recommend this free series of lectures-- it was recommended to me.
http://www.justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=5
---
Now, my personal philosophy is based on the concept that unless you give your informed uncoerced consent that it's evil.
In the case you present-- it's my choice. If I decide to do so, it's good even tho I die (even if only one of them lived... even if only one of them lived for a few days and then died). Their life or death isn't the point. My consent is the point.
Humans make this kind of choice every day. It's pretty cool and noble. Do they dive into the freezing water to save someone, step in front of a bullet to protect someone, give up a kidney to give someone life?
Spock made the decision that he was willing to give up *his* life to save the many. His decision. His life. Not for someone else. Not about someone else's life.
--
Anyway, the exact question you propose is in that lecture series. It's a classic problem. Consent and intent make the difference between evil and good.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Some governments start out that way. So far all but about 6 end badly in under 500 years.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
There is a difference between everyone having a chance and some being denied even a chance. There is a difference between poverty and being imprisoned without food until you starve.
However, it's a difference of degree. When it becomes clear that the only freedom you have is the "freedom" to starve, then you realize you are really under the law of the jungle and are free do what you have to do to survive.
ak freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"And that's the downside of utilitarianism: it can be used to construct a framework under which almost anything appears ethical, even though a further refinement shows just the opposite. It's a problem, because people tend to stop looking any further once they have a reason why the thing they want to do is the "right" thing to do."
So piracy is utilitarianism taken too far?
Governments don't exist to "pursue the collective good".
Sure they do. Imagine washing ashore on a deserted, uncharted island with a number of strangers. In order to survive, you'd band together for common defense. You'd work together to gather resources and build things that no one person could do by themselves so effectively (e.g. find food, find fuel, make fire, get things to build with, make tools, dig wells, build shelter). You'd have to decide what things would be crimes, enforced by the group against law-breaking members, as well as what punishments, if any, would result. Generally, crimes would be behavior that harms the group, and would include things like murder, hoarding, sabotage, rape, etc. Property rights would be established, but only where they don't conflict with the group's overall needs. If one person tries to lay claim to the only well, he'll either have to hold it against the rest of the group by force, or the group likely won't stand for it.
It's a jungle out there, and people organize themselves into societies, with rules, to better their odds.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
While as a Trekky, I like the reference. I hope that they referenced utilitarianism in the article and I hope that they recognize utilitarianism can be used to justify evil things including letting a few starve so everyone else can live. This may be realistic but its evil unless you are acting as spock and *SACRIFICING YOURSELF* to be one of the few helping the rest. If the rest are choosing you to die against your will, it's evil.
Utilitarianism negates free will, property rights and individuality when misapplied (and perhaps when correctly applied too).
The whole point of a consequentalist ethic such as utilitarianism its independence from perspective. A utilitarian sees no difference between sacrificing oneself for the greater good or sacrificing another moral agent for the same good. The facts from all perspectives would be: someone is sacrificed, others have benefited. If we claim that the value of a moral agent shifts with perspective (e.g. I am the one who should first be sacrificed, simply on account of the fact that I am making this moral judgment), we must abandon all pretense of every moral agent being equal, which I believe must be the basis of any just ethic.
And how does utilitarianism negate free will? A moral theory is a statement about what *ought* to be, whereas whether or not we have free will is a question regarding what *is.* No truth of what ought to be ever has any bearing on the truth of what is actually the case.
Data: "Would you choose one life over a thousand, sir?"
Picard: "I refuse to let arithmetic decide questions like that."
Wookies do not live on Endor.
Someone who blows up teenagers is a terrorist.
Fuck no. Teenagers serving in a regular military in time of war are fair game, by even the most restrictive Western notions of civilised warfare.
The only reason to shift the discussion from some notion of "innocent"/belligerent, civilian/military, or similar, to an arbitrary age cutoff at 20 years, is to cloud logic with emotion. Think of the children? Think of a grenade up your arse, sir!
It's a jungle out there, and people organize themselves into societies, with rules, to better their odds.
Yes, people voluntarily form groups and behave in their individual and collective interests. None of that requires formal government. Besides, the reality is that most primal governments are principalities dictated by a warlord.
Generally, crimes would be behavior that harms the group, and would include things like murder, hoarding, sabotage, rape, etc.
Hoarding doesn't necessarily harm the group. And rape has been an integral part of the founding of many societies. Why are you trying to create a modern consumer-driven democracy on a deserted island? You've failed already in your governing experiment.
And your definition of "crime" is wrong. Did you just blindly memorize everything they told you in law school?
If one person tries to lay claim to the only well,
Wells don't exist naturally on deserted islands. If someone digs a well, it's his. More likely, in fact, anyone trying to "lay claim to the only well" would be a government official.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
90+% of blacks voted for Kerry in 2004. There's your refutation. Aside from a couple of percent, their votes had nothing to do with the color of the president's skin.
That's bullshit. Someone who blows up teenagers is a terrorist. Doesn't matter if they are on my side or your side.
If that's your opinion, then every war is full of terrorists on both sides. People generally don't define the word terrorist that way, which is when "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" applies. It doesn't make much difference if one bombs those teenagers from an airplane flying at 20kft or right from the street. War is done by means available and all sides use tactics they deem effective.
Putting definitions aside I kind of agree with you. Most wars not justifiable and only breed more violence. What I wanted to alleviate though is that every side involved in a conflict wants to take the moral high ground and tries to justify their actions by greater good.
Thanks for sharing. That's impressive stuff.
testing out my trending skills
Eminent domain.
Exactly. At the time he made the decision, he was effectively the captain of a starving lifeboat, deciding that either everyone could die slowly, or half the people could die quickly. How he chose them is of very little importance.
On the other hand, I hope you realize your anti-utilitarianism can be used to justify evil things including letting everyone die so a few don't starve.
No, it sounds like that's the downside to a misuse of utilitarianism. You're basically saying "oh, a downside to utilitarianism is EXAMPLE_WHERE_SOMEONE_DOES_NOT_USE_UTILITARIANISM."
What a marvelously conclusory statement without an ounce of logical reasoning provided! You're ignoring the obvious explanation that science developed because of a sequence of random events. The whole "million chimps, million typewriters" deal. Your argument is glorified creationism: "Things only could have come about if there were a (free-willed) designer!"
That explains it!
IMDb and The Star Trek Transcripts (reason why explained by Spock's mother).
puh, for a moment there i was wondering why a texas court was putting the many ahead of the few.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
The right to property follows from the physical fact that if I'm using an item then nobody else can be using it at the same time, and that it can be convenient not to have to constantly guard the item between uses. The differences between "Hey, I'm using that!" and "Hey, that's mine!" are not great.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I think your argument is flawed. What makes you think the scientists couldn't be pre-ordained to think outside the box?
Personally, I just assume free will exists: if I'm right, great; if I'm wrong, I was pre-ordained to be so!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
But it is right for an individual to own (and therefore control) property, yet everyone to suffer the consequences collectively?
I'm suffering right now because a guy down the street owns a Mercedes and I don't. Is that what you mean?
Rights can be derived from the golden rule.
My rights come from my ability to violate yours.
The guy down the street owns a VERY LOUD Mercedes that wakes everyone up at 4am.
or
The guy down the street owns a patent on parts of the human genome - that he won't share and is now otherwise unlawful to use.
or
The guy down the street owns a bomb - it explodes.
On a more realistic note, if there was no such thing as free will, then science would never have developed anything. No thinking "outside the box" allowed ;-) (philosophy has never been one of my strong subjects, because I think most of it is an illusion produced by people exercising free will...)
I'm not sure if that smiley should indicate that you're joking, but your statement is plainly absurd.
"Thinking outside the box" and "free will" have nothing to do with each other. The former describes that you think different than others on some particular topic. It is a matter of conformance. The second on the other hand, describes that you can freely choose what to think, which is a matter of determinism.
To make the difference even more clear, imagine a set of gears. If everyone of them has the same diameter and same number of teeth, they will behave exactly the same (as far as using them as gears is concerned), thus they conform to each other, and they will behave the same way every time. Now imagine that you cut away one of the teeth from one of the gears.
It will now behave different than the others; but does that mean that it won't do the same thing every time? No. While it does not conform to the others anymore, it's still fully deterministic.
Conformance and determinism are simply different concepts. You can still "think outside the box", even if your whole existence only goes through predetermined motions. It only means that your motion leads you to a different position, that's all.
Actually.. let's look at this in the proper light
We know that any judgements will be used as examples in future court cases. So each court-case which is interpreting the law as it adheres to the conflict between 2 entities should not be deciding on the issue -just- for that case, it should be deciding it for all the future cases the next 200+ years which might quote this case. Because this interpretation can fuck over someone in the future, it's best any judge interprets the evidence so it benefits society as a whole.
Kirk isn't a judge, he's a military officer preserving an asset to his team, and it's his choice to save someone he wants to attempt to save or not.
So kirk just said something dickish and illogical because he can. Spock didn't say anything, because it was in his best interest in letting the loudmouth human-retard save him.
Big kirk/spock fan btw, but still, he's a dick sometimes.
>If property rights cause more harm than good they should be abandoned.
So, I can kill you and take your stuff and you are good with that. Cool.
How nice of you. Why, I bet you would even save black people!
> Humans make this kind of choice every day. It's pretty cool and noble. Do they dive into the freezing water to save someone, step in front of a bullet to protect someone, give up a kidney to give someone life?
You said it, man. That's totally how my typical day goes.
---Batman
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
Typical, politicians, clergy, judges, C*Os....
"the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" Spock
"the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" Kirk
The judges spun/frame use of the saying in reference to StarTrek is wrong.
Saints and Warriors may risk-all for the many, but the many sometimes will risk-all for one.
Both Spock and Kirk lines are valid on the weight of need, not the one or the many.
If the Judges made the ruling based on the one and many, then they either screwed-up or used the wrong situational quote as example for their ruling.
Example: The needs of a few disabled Veterans always outweighs the needs of the nations population, but typical politicians, clergy, judges, C*Os... do spin it into far less important.
Who lives, dies, and their quality-of-life is a measure of need without equal importance.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
The American Confederation and later United States Constitution was founded on that principle. The individual matters.
Unless, of course, you were a slave.
If indeed "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one/few", why do American and British laws permit a few people to own billions of dollars while others lack housing, clothing, education, and even food?
Methinks it depends on which "many" and which "few" one is talking about. It is quite possible to see today's "Western" societies as sophisticated machines for making sure that the needs of a privileged few outweigh those of everyone else. I do not say this from any ideological standpoint - merely as a result of observation and experience.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I hope that they referenced utilitarianism in the article and I hope that they recognize utilitarianism can be used to justify evil things including letting a few starve so everyone else can live.
How is that evil?
If some have to starve, so that others can live, what's the alternative? Everybody dies? And that's better somehow?
I don't care how you pick, or who gets picked, somebody is going to die.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
If what you said was true, then animals would not expand into new territories that would force them to evolve; which is obviously false.
A species of animal can expand into a new territory, evolve, etc.
An individual animal still can't claim more territory than it is able to use at one time.
A neighborhood cat might claim a few blocks of the town as its territory. He can patrol around, catch the mice running around in his area, make sweet, sweet love to the lady cats, chase other male cats away, etc.
An especially ambitious cat might try to claim ownership of the entire city, but he will still only be able to patrol a few blocks on his own. He can claim it's all his, but he can't use the law and other social constructs to deny other cats the use of the property he claims as his own.
As someone else said earlier, property rights only came to importance when humans settled down and began to use agriculture on a mass scale- a few thousand years ago.
For the majority of human history, we were living in hunter-gather tribes. My tribe might live in the area with the best deer hunting, and we might try to keep your tribe from hunting in our general area if you get too close (since that would put a strain on resources we need to survive,) but we have no way of claiming land we're currently not using, or denying you use of that property because we "own" it.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Natural rights are not equivalent to the law of the jungle. Locke pretty clearly spells this out.
This seems to be a major stumbling block for non-libertarian types
Locke claimed property rights as a natural right. This is simply incorrect, which might be why non-libertarian types have a problem with it. Just because Locke said it doesn't mean we have to believe it.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
It's a difference of intent.
If the enemy attacks my side and civilians are accidentally killed, it's not terrorism.
Terrorism has the express purpose of creating terror in the civilian populace by targeting the civilian populace.
A freedom fighter might scare the hell out of enemies, kill them by the thousands, burn them to death, drown them, etc. They cross the line to being a terrorist when they kill a four year old *because* it's a four year old to create terror in the hearts of parents. When they kill seniors in an old folk's home because they are seniors in an old folk's home. It would be completely different if the military had a valid target or there was a power station right next door to the daycare or seniors home and their deaths were accidental/or necessary but not the target of the attack.
We have rules of war that specify who valid targets are. OTH, I think "freedom fighters" have to break some of the rules of war because of the mismatch. I can grant them not wearing uniforms, attacking sneakily, etc. as long as the targets are valid.
---
To your end point, we have some ugly wars ahead and no one is going to be right. Hope I'm dead by then.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
How he chose them is of the utmost importance.
There was no consent and he chose along eugenics/arbitrary/(probably racist) lines. It was genocide.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
shouldn't they be citing blackstone, montesque, the federalist papers or something? From what I was told this weekend these writers aren't required or even suggested reading in few if any lawschools today. The legal system and government today is totally out of control and won't even look at original intent.
Spock made the decision that he was willing to give up *his* life to save the many. His decision. His life. Not for someone else. Not about someone else's life.
Isn't it a little bit different for Spock than the rest of us by virtue of the fact that he willingly (the Federation doesn't have a draft to the best of my knowledge) joined a military force? If you are a member of any modern day military you can be ordered to give up your life to save your comrades. Starfleet isn't any different. There was an episode of TNG where Troi was going for a promotion and couldn't pass the required test because she wasn't willing to send a crew member to his death to save everybody else.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That was an example of Cataphora.
So, you've mis-quoted me.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Yup. You only get to use this quote if you're part of the few, not the many. Otherwise it's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
My mistake. I'll submit the following as a correction:
Natural rights are not equivalent to the law of the jungle. Locke pretty clearly spells this out.
Locke claimed property rights as a natural right. This is simply incorrect. Just because Locke said it doesn't mean we have to believe it.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Compare to Torchwood: Children of Earth, anyone?
Denise Riley: The first responsibility is to protect the best interest of this country, right? Then let's say it: in a national emergency a country must plan for the future. And discriminate between those who are vital to continued stability and - those who are not. And now that we've established that our kids are exempt the whole principle of random selection is dead in the water anyway. - Let me finish! Now look: on the one hand we've got the good schools and I don't just mean those producing graduates. I mean the people who will go on to staff our hospitals, our offices, our factories; the work force of the future. We need them. Accepted, yes? So: set against that, you got the failing schools, full of the less able, the less socially useful, those destined to spend a lifetime on benefits occupying places on the dole queue and, frankly, the prisons. Now look, should we treat them equally? - God knows we've tried and we failed, and now the time has come to choose. And if we can't identify the lowest achieving ten percent of this country's children, then what are the school league tables for?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
That explains the convenience and practicality of individual property, not the basis of the "right" to individual property. There are other practical methods of apportioning property use that don't utilize private property rights. One may be more convenient or productive than the other, but there is no demonstrable basis that one is more "right", or more natural than the other.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
If the alternatives are everyone dying or murdering a few (involuntarily killing them), then the only moral/good outcome is for all to die. That's what courts of law have found in the past too. There is a classic case of 4 sailors on a lifeboat who killed (and drank the blood of and some ate part of) a cabin boy who was sick and weaker than they were. They survived and went to prison.
The only moral option is for someone to kill themselves (or perhaps clearly voluntarily offer to be killed). Otherwise, if every dies, at least they died good and not evil.
Would you kill a 3 year old to survive? How about a young mother? Perhaps an old person- or as above someone who is "sick already". Seriously? Picture your self sliding a knife into their throat or strangling them so you could live. Could you imagine that as a "good" deed in any way?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Except he wasn't order to do this. it was self sacrifice. and probably yet another emotional decision under the cover of logic (hell, I remember welling up seeing him die so nobly -- nimoy ate that scene up).
but yes, military commanders (for lives) and business leaders (for jobs) have the authority to morally kill/fire single individuals to protect the rest. Where it gets evil is the involuntary draft. But even during WWII, if you were willing to go to prison, you could avoid military duty and the possibility of being sacrificed.
And in war time, people repeatedly put themselves at risk and die for the rest of their group. The rest of the group isn't evil unless the death assignment was unfair. If it was just your turn, then it had to be done by someone.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I don't understand what you're saying. Utilitarianism isn't like capitalism or communism, in that the latter two are prescriptive systems which predict a result, whereas the former is just a method of evaluating the results.
I know, he wasn't ordered to do it, it just occurs to me that he COULD have been.
Actually, Scotty or one of his colleagues should have been ordered to do it. No sense in the XO abandoning his bridge post during a crisis when the engineering staff is (or should be) capable of addressing the problem.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
FTFY.
Randomness doesn't mean you have free will. The dice you roll don't have free will just because they come to a random result. Likewise, our inability to predict human actions does not mean they have free will. Unless you redefine free will to actually mean results that are not 100% predictable, which has a couple of consequences:
1. Radioactive decay has free will
2. You still have to prove that the brain cannot be reduced to deterministic "hidden variables" which are just obfuscated by the complexity of the brain.
I don't think acting randomly is what most people mean when they say free will. Then again, I have a hard time grasping exactly what people mean by this. One thing's clear to me: it doesn't mean the same thing to everybody, which always muddies these debates.
We wouldn't have creativity without free will.
That does not follow even if I were to grant your premise.
Doing good for society at large is often used as an excuse to suppress the rights of individuals. Unless there is a wide consensus in a society to implement something, eg universal education funding, courts, police, fire department, the government should not force it on everyone.
Anarchists never rule
True.
That had more to do with movie reality and Nimoy's agreeing to come back if spock died.
While realistic, it would have been movie-wierd to have some completely unknown ensign who'd never been in a movie heroically dying the exact same way.
Sort of like the away team being senior officers-- I'm sure there are lots of away teams without senior officers (in fact some of the shows portray this and they are always off camera)-- but the story doesn't follow them.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Utilitarianism is prescriptive in that it says "the best outcome is X, so you should work to achieve X."
I decided to exercise my free will by randomly selecting
What's "I" - and how does it "select"?
Your body is a bunch of atoms restricted by the laws of physics. There's no support in science for an "I" built up of other types of material.
it's in my head
Yes, people voluntarily form groups and behave in their individual and collective interests. None of that requires formal government.
How formal do you think a government actually has to be? And why can't any of these groups be a government? Here in the US, people are very used to dealing with at least two independent governments (the federal government and their state's government).
Besides, the reality is that most primal governments are principalities dictated by a warlord.
One warlord, by himself, isn't very powerful. It takes the willing cooperation of his warriors to give him power. If he tries to order them to do something they're unwilling to do, the warlord will quickly find himself overthrown.
Hoarding doesn't necessarily harm the group.
No, but it may, and in any event, it is the group that gets to decide. Some groups might not tolerate it until their situation is quite secure.
And your definition of "crime" is wrong.
What would you suggest?
If someone digs a well, it's his.
And if two people come along, it's theirs, unless they choose to let the well-digger keep it. The mere act of digging a well doesn't give someone the ability to keep it.
More likely, in fact, anyone trying to "lay claim to the only well" would be a government official.
So?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
And who should we believe instead, you?
If you're against the idea of private property, join a commune. No one is stopping you.
But god help you if you try to deny me mine.
Oh, how I hate to reply to ACs, but here goes:
And who should we believe instead, you? :)
Sure, if you want. My opinion is just as valid
If you're against the idea of private property, join a commune. No one is stopping you.
Actually, if I wanted to withdraw from civilization, either by myself or with a group of people, I'd have to find some unowned land to live on. Good luck with that.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Your opinion is not as valid; you provide absolutely no justification for it whatsoever. Locke's reasoning was weak, but he at least had some.
Actually, if I wanted to withdraw from civilization, either by myself or with a group of people, I'd have to find some unowned land to live on.
So you do actually recognize property rights, you just don't happen to have any?
(And your definition of civilization is mistakenly broad.)
Your opinion is not as valid; you provide absolutely no justification for it whatsoever. Locke's reasoning was weak, but he at least had some.
Fair enough. Honestly, since this is Slashdot, I didn't really feel like typing out a giant treatise about my take on property rights, only to hear the same old arguments for and against it. I've heard them all before. We've all heard them all before. I'm not going to change anyone's mind here.
So you do actually recognize property rights, you just don't happen to have any?
I recognize that someone's claim on property is backed by a threat of either direct force, or of the law. That doesn't mean I recognize their claim as legitimate. Whether or not I have any is irrelevant.
(And your definition of civilization is mistakenly broad.)
This is an unusual claim, since I never made any mention of a definition of "civilization."
I do know what it means, thank-you-very-much.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
If you want to decide what's natural, look at what animals do. Animals don't get together and "apportion" their nests or dens or territory; they obtain them by occupying and defending them. Humans naturally do exactly the same thing; codifying those natural rights into law merely allow humanity to be more efficient by not having to hire private armies to guard everything (instead, the police and courts guard it on each property owner's behalf).
Those other methods of apportioning you mention might be practical, but they aren't natural -- "natural" means what happens in nature by default.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Lots of things happen in nature. Some animals exhibit individual property behaviors, many don't. Fish, ants, bees, I could go on and on. Collective property, yes, but not individual property. What makes individual property behavior so special that is should be considered every humans' right to own individual property? As a practical matter, it is convenient. As some sort of ideal, I see no particular argument in it's favor.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
What are the circumstances? The question is meaningless without context. For instance, if the young mother is actively trying to kill me (or someone else), I can certainly see myself killing her to survive. I'd probably try to subdue her first, but again, there has to be some context to the question before the answer has any meaning.
As it is, it's a loaded question that implies that any "yes" answers are equal to being some sort of a cold blooded killer.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
I thought the context was clear from above. Murdering some members of a group in distress so the rest will survive.
---
You and 1 or more other people will survive if you kill the baby, mother or old person. ( suppose the weak people could also overpower and kill the strong person/person with the gun if they fell asleep).
Which are moral choices: For all to die, sacrifice yourself, murder someone else?
I see two moral choices.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Ants and bees form sort of collective super-organisms; they don't exhibit individual property behaviors because they aren't really individuals to begin with (instead, their actions are determined by pheromones in a way that resembles control more than it does communication). Humans are not like that.
Fish do exhibit individual property behaviors, in that they can be territorial (see Siamese fighting fish for an extreme example), and even schooling fish compete with each other for food. To see cooperative behavior you have to go way up the evolutionary chain to higher mammals, such as dolphins (and their cooperation is just as much a social construct as ours is).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Your point about the collective nature of bees and ants is a good one; that sort of organization doesn't really apply to human societies. However, the idea that territoriality or resource competition in nature forms some sort of justification for the societal construct of private property rights doesn't strike me as a valid connection. I don't believe animals base these sorts of behaviors on anything more sophisticated than "might makes right", it's mine b/c I want it and can take it/keep it from you (if there are counter examples, I would be interested to hear them). Human society has mostly rejected this philosophy.
I think my use of the term "natural rights" has led us a bit astray. My point is simply that people often refer to private property rights as an inalienable right. I have never heard a compelling argument as to the fundamental nature of these rights as compared to let's say the right to life. I can easily imagine a valid moral system that does not recognize private property, especially as defined in today's society. I can not imagine at all a valid moral system that does not recognize the right to life or the right to freedom of association.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
On the contrary; "might makes right" is exactly what property is! All the laws and whatnot are constructed by society merely to make the process less barbaric.
Well, now you really are talking about two different things. Rights that are "natural" (i.e., default) are entirely different from rights that are necessary for some particular moral system. In fact, I would argue that neither the right to life or the right to freedom of association are natural rights. The right to life is incompatible with the concept of the food chain, and the right to freedom of association is downright modern (and still doesn't exist even in many human societies today!). Naturally speaking, a right to free association would be downright dangerous because it would reduce tribal cohesion.
All this isn't to say I don't like having a moral system that includes the rights to life and freedom of association; quite the opposite. However, it's still possible to imagine other systems.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Too bad that the entire mental jerkoff that this post represent is disproven as easily as pointing to the market value of Zynga compared to the market value of Electronic Arts, and the smoldering corpse of Amiga and Sega by the wayside.
The problem with presenting a theory that a) doesn't conclude in the ending of the world and b) presumes that some companies will be winners and other losers is that it doesn't allow a third-party viewer to conclude whether today's firms are either one of A) "Permanent Winners of the Dynastic Winner-Loser Process" or "Competitors But Upcoming Losers in the Winner-Loser Process". It is hence a theory that cannot be proven or disproven by observation. It can always explain away observations to prove itself true.
To demonstrate: When Microsoft was big, a proponent of this theory would have said "Microsoft is the dynastic winner of all time!". Let's say that in five years' time the mobile platform is everything and only losers have desktops. The proponent of the theory will then say: "Apple is the dynastic winner of all time and they have permanently overcome losers such as Microsoft on their way to dynastic victory". Hence although the theory predicts that a company that is a winner will continue to be a winner, it is self-proving in that it allows dynamically and retrospectively to redefine companies as either dynastic winners or dynastic losers.
In other words, if I rather proclaim: "The world functions such that in the great Land of the Free, any large company will eventually succumb to an upstart created by a clever person and willing financial backers", it would be impossible in any state of the world prove whether his or my theory was the correct one. Scroll forward ten years and it would still be impossible - if five large companies called X have gone bust whilst their competitors called Y have grown to overtake them the author would say "Look, in accordance with my theory Y is evolving to become the dynastic winner of all time!" I would say, "Look, X has fallen to Y because large companies eventually get replaced by better competitors!"
Let's say that in five years' time the mobile platform is everything and only losers have desktops.
Bad analogy. On what hardware do people develop applications for the mobile platform? Or are all application developers losers?
But more generally, each land rush has a few winners. For example, Microsoft won the desktop PC land rush, and Apple appears to be one of the leaders in the ongoing mobile land rush. Long periods without land rushes result in the winners becoming dynastic. Such long periods were common before roughly the twentieth century AD, and I see such a long period starting sometime in the coming decades as integrated circuit makers run up against physical limits of Moore's law. Either that or there will be a quantum computing land rush.
Even the statement 'X appears to be one of the winners' has the components 'appears' and 'one of', which in itself contradicts any claims about dynasties being in anything like late-stage formation.
Unlike the desktop PC land-rush, and unlike the mobile phone carrier land-rush, the smartphone OS land-rush hasn't yet resulted in a winner, let alone a dynasty.
If mobile phones get absorbed into mobile computers Apple's lead suddenly looks a lot less clear.
Where can I try a pocket computer that 1. isn't a phone with a $70/month phone bill and 2. isn't made by Apple? I am still waiting to try Archos 43 or Samsung Galaxy Player 50 in a store in my area; all they have is iPod touch.
what is "new land" and what is "old land"?
Old land is any market that has stabilized to a point where a few firms have raised entry barriers dramatically to the point where a startup needs the financial resources of the monopolist or one of the oligopolists in another old-land market. For example, it took Microsoft two console generations to buy its way into the video game console business and displace Sega. In the mid-2000s, Nintendo faced a specs war that it couldn't win and instead sought a blue ocean with a Revolution-ary new input device that ended up as the Wii Remote. But you have made your point that nobody has yet added rigor to this interpretation.
And if "mobile data devices" is new land from "smartphones" which is new land from "mobile phones" which is new land from "portable phones"
I see "mobile data devices" and "smartphones" as the same market, defined by the combination of a mobile phone and the ability to download and run applications developed by individuals and companies, be they in native code, in managed code, or in a scripting language. By "portable phones" did you mean pre-GSM mobile phones running AMPS, D-AMPS (aka "TDMA"), or IS-95 (aka "cdmaOne"), or did you mean cordless phones that use unlicensed spectrum to communicate with a land line in the same building?
"One of these dynasties I just mentioned will naturally end as soon as a product taking over some of its functions but meaningfully different comes onto the market"
I interpreted it sort of this way. But even as far as smartphones have come since the days of MIDlets, I don't see them displacing Microsoft's dominance of the office desktop and the Microsoft-Apple duopoly of creative industry any time soon.