From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Wed May 01 2002 - 23:43:15 MDT
Lee Corbin writes:
> I certainly agree, but only because I shun the whole notion of
> *justification*. It's a harmful enough notion when used in
> philosophy; it's use here is even more misleading. If someone
> showed me pictures that my neighbor was doing any one of many
> nefarious things and asked, "is this justified?", I'd express
> my strong outrage at the activity in question. And that
> certainly includes child abuse! But unlike most people, *my*
> outrage does not automatically translate into action.
So you are saying that you would not "automatically" intervene to stop
child abuse. But that does not answer the question of whether you
would actually intervene or not - I don't know what the qualifier
"automatically" means in this instance.
Suppose you saw some thugs fall upon a pedestrian and begin to beat
and rob him, you would not try to help, because of your belief in the
freedom of the robbers? I can't believe that.
Maybe our communications problem is a matter of terminology. Let's forget
issues of justification and of morality, and even of "outlawing", and
just ask what you personally would do.
Would you personally intervene to try to stop your neighbor's abuse of
his child?
Would you personally intervene to try to stop your neighbor from
genetically engineering his yet-to-be-born child in some abusive way?
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:45 MST