tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post5729384069657186443..comments2024-03-26T12:23:29.784-04:00Comments on Philosoraptor: Does It Matter How Effective/Successful NSA Metadata Collection Is?Winston Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-82203547988571474092014-02-06T07:02:56.438-05:002014-02-06T07:02:56.438-05:00Ah, now I think I see what you mean.
I don't ...Ah, now I think I see what you mean.<br /><br />I don't see that the 1% doctrine is literally presupposed here, but there is some weird similarity...Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-71286517576268992152014-02-03T23:23:08.758-05:002014-02-03T23:23:08.758-05:00Sorry about failing to respond earlier. My point a...Sorry about failing to respond earlier. My point about hypotheticals like this is they assume the Cheney Doctrine: given a prior event with (unknown but tiny) probability, what is the morality of doing X as a preemptive measure against Y? <br /><br />The collection of metadata is something that must be done in advance (like invading a country, torturing someone, etc.) before determining that Y Pete Mackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14675790226494153847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-66582320567103330692014-01-27T13:04:11.546-05:002014-01-27T13:04:11.546-05:00Thanks for this comment, A. I agreed with some of ...Thanks for this comment, A. I agreed with some of this already, and what I didn't already agree with strikes me as plausible.<br /><br />My own basic position has been kinda the flip side of this, though...something like:<br /><br />Don't try to prove torture unacceptable in principle, even in ticking-time-bomb/vaporization of NYC cases. Trying to do that is futile, and makes the Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-60953070872268456942014-01-27T12:50:22.240-05:002014-01-27T12:50:22.240-05:00Philosophers have something of an addiction to tic...Philosophers have something of an addiction to ticking time bomb scenarios. That's understandable, since they look like a simple, intuitive way of setting up rule/consequence dilemmas. But the problem is that they require the supposition that breaking the rule would, in fact, produce the positive consequence. The problem is, suppositions have a tendency to drift into general assumptions aboutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-34162368007787637112014-01-26T06:30:40.904-05:002014-01-26T06:30:40.904-05:00No, the Cheney Doctrine is the so-called "1% ...No, the Cheney Doctrine is the so-called "1% Doctrine"...not well-defined, but roughly: <br /><br />If there's even a 1% chance that x is happening, and x is helpful to terrorists, then we should treat x as if we were certain that it's happening. <br /><br />That's a completely different thing.Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-48054037599505071482014-01-26T00:31:34.580-05:002014-01-26T00:31:34.580-05:00This kind of reasoning already has it's own na...This kind of reasoning already has it's own name as a common fallacy: the "Cheney Doctrine." It's a recipe for bad policy; taken to its logical end, it's a recipe for tyranny.Pete Mackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14675790226494153847noreply@blogger.com