From: Randall Randall (wolfkin@freedomspace.net)
Date: Fri Nov 29 2002 - 09:09:08 MST
John K Clark wrote:
>>>Me:
>>>Then you should not drive a car because every time you get behind the
>>>wheel there is a small but nonzero probability that you will make a
>>>mistake and kill a innocent life.
> Randall Randall" <wolfkin@freedomspace.net> Wrote:
>
>>Do you not understand how taking an irreversible action is different
>>from taking an action that may have an irreversible result?
>
> No. If he's really guilty then I don't want to reverse it, and if he's not
> then I do not see how they are different. If you make a mistake and drive
> over the head of a child that's as irreversible as making a mistake and
> executing an innocent man; and there is a nonzero possibility that either or
> both could happen.
I don't believe that it would really be the same, unless you deliberately
set out to drive very near the heads of small children. However, I'm
willing to accept that for the purposes of argument if you are willing to
stipulate that executing an innocent is murder, and carries a mandatory
execution for the murderer. While I wouldn't prefer such a system, it
would at least have reasonable checks built into it: executioners would
want to personally verify that the condemned were really guilty.
> The idea that you shouldn't take an action unless there
> is no possibility of error at all just doesn't fly in the real world.
I think that taking an avoidable, irreversible action is unwise. I
don't believe that an absolute prohibition on irreversible actions is
the answer either, however.
-- Randall Randall <randall@randallsquared.com> "[The] poetic justice of cause and effect compels respect, compassion." -- Faithless, God is a DJ.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:29 MST