From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Aug 17 2002 - 10:18:24 MDT
Damien writes
> Lee wrote of [a] far-fetched scenario:
>
> >Let me assume that, say, exactly six leading Muslim nations
> >were found to be in on the conspiracy.
>
> `Were found to be', eh. By whom? Who gets told about this, and what kind of
> evidence would be regarded as compelling? And what is a `Muslim nation' to
> make such decisions? And why do the millions of humans in such `Muslim
> nations' deserve to be volatilized because of the (purported) decisions of
> an elite group of crazed murderers?
You'll find this extreme, but no one deserves anything
bad, and giving people what they deserve isn't the point
anyway. Millions die in wars for reasons I hardly need
to explain to you, and we should keep Avatar Polymorph's
words fresh in our minds:
> Remember that all human beings are living, breathing, thinking,
> feeling entities. Remember that two wrongs don't make a right.
> Maintain a higher moral and ethical stance even when you don't
> have to. [Slightly paraphrased]
Damien continues
>> Or whichever cities the Americans *believe the enemy
>> leaders to be in [should get wiped]
>
> Reason, outrage and sarcasm fail me. What list is this again?
Among other things, it's to discuss terribly difficult,
sometimes soul-wrenching questions. On occasion, it's to
discuss "the unthinkable", or at least that from which
many people avert their eyes and pretend doesn't exist.
> The rabid `Trust your government and its departments to tell you the
> whole truth, this is America One Nation Under God after all' list?
Of course, I'd disapprove (to put it mildly) were some nation
such as Israel, the US, the UK, or Russia to unjustly attack
anyone, and your reminder that governments lie, while benign,
is irrelevant, given the hypothesis. This is because the
question was, what should a government do, not how I should
feel as a citizen, or whether I should necessarily believe
their reasons (if stated at all in an emergency).
> Sorry Lee, I know you're a good fellow, but this hypothetical assessment
> seems to me to verge on the criminally deranged--even if it is an opinion I
> expect would be very widely shared. (And yes, of course by many Australians
> too if the equivalent situation were posed here and we, shudder, had access
> to nuclear weapons and delivery systems.)
An excellent purpose of this list would be to uncover portions of
ourselves or Minskian agents that are criminally deranged, and I
don't consider that off-topic. How do you explain your own behavior
when angry? A system such as yourself is built by nature with a
certain "irrationality" because sometimes it's smart to be crazy.
With your erudition, I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking
about. Well, nations are systems too, and in the brutal world
of international relations, the law of the jungle (or at least
the playground) applies, and has applied for perhaps the last
six thousand years or so. Just as people have to be afraid of
making Damien angry, so countries, leaders, terrorists etc. have
to be afraid of making nations angry. But the nations themselves,
because of their integrity, will act as though angry. What don't
you understand?
Eliezer writes
> What should we do if Manhattan gets nuked? Well, medical care
> for the victims would be a good start.
This evasion of the central question is out of character for you, Eliezer.
And if you really believe that governments of 21st century and 20th century
nations should take no actions in some cases, *silence* is not the proper way
to recommend that option (as you said in a part of your reply I didn't quote).
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:11 MST