From: Richard Steven Hack (richardhack@pcmagic.net)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 10:38:38 MST
At 10:02 AM 3/8/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Louis Newstrom wrote:
> >
> > Simply, If you say "don't coerce" then you can't coerce people into
> > following that rule!
> >
> > If you make "don't coerce" a rule, then the remedy is to penalize whomever
> > is coercing.
>
>Sure, this holds true on the human level. But you don't necessarily need to
>coerce people into following "don't coerce" by threat of punishment; you can
>intervene at other points in the sequence of cause and effect. Let's say
>that you have a roomful of people who are somewhat good shots; they all have
>guns; they have something of a dominance hierarchy based on who's the best
>shot, their internal alliances, and so on. Now I walk into the room and I'm
>a *really* good shot. In fact, I'm such a good shot that I don't even need
>to say "I'll shoot the first person who tries to pull a trigger." I can
>just shoot the bullets out of the air. I am not coercing anyone; they can
>fire all the bullets they want, without threat of retaliation. But
>nonetheless coercion is no longer possible.
>
>-- -- -- -- --
>Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
>Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
>
Good point. Agreed. The example is a bit contrived, but it is a valid
point. Education in cause and effect is better than "punishment". Even
Nietzsche as I recall recognized that "punishment" was an ineffective and
low-level response.
Richard Steven Hack
richardhack@pcmagic.net
--- Outgoing e-mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:51 MST