From: Wei Dai (weidai@eskimo.com)
Date: Thu May 23 2002 - 13:05:38 MDT
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 02:13:13PM -0400, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> I hate contrived arguments. They usually cannot really exist in the
> real world. They serve only to lock an opponent into an imaginary
> alternate universe where only your opinions make sense and their own
> opinions are invalid by definition. I don't see how this helps the
> discussion any Such contrived examples do not translate their
> conclusions back into our real world. Even if you get an opponent to
> agree to your terms in that specific unrealistic situation, so what?
> Does this give you more ammunition to apply an unlikely solution more
> broadly?
My example is not contrived. Consider a fireman who runs into a building
and sees five people, and he has to prioritize who to save first. That
seems quite realistic and fits my example. Or consider a security guard
who is deciding whether or not to search someone.
> Why is it so important to invent a scenario where racial prejudice,
> pre-emptive attack, or undesired coercion is OK? Where is this
> leading? Why are we trying to justify things through convoluted logic
> that we reject on the face of them? If you don't have time to make an
> informed opinion or gather sufficient evidence for your claims, why not
> admit that you have an unsubstantiated view? Why try to prove some sort
> of moral authority for making hasty or unsupported decisions when
> necessary?
Why do you assume I'm trying to justify something? Is it not possible that
I'm interested in a moral problem and want to know how Extropian
principles can help?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:18 MST