tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post1684779537515963050..comments2024-03-26T12:23:29.784-04:00Comments on Philosoraptor: Winston Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-35965072917610545972009-04-29T10:27:00.000-04:002009-04-29T10:27:00.000-04:00I agree with Winston and Jim. My thinking is that...I agree with Winston and Jim. My thinking is that, since bounding exercises are useful in mathematics and the sciences, as you guys say, they should be useful in philosophical inquiry. <br /><br />I know it doesn't always conform to this ideal, but I think one of the things philosophy strives for is the purity of reason and logic that is applied to the sciences and math.Lewis Carrollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-84595280114679154632009-04-29T07:25:00.000-04:002009-04-29T07:25:00.000-04:00I absolutely agree, Jim.
In fact, I often think o...I absolutely agree, Jim.<br /><br />In fact, I often think of this with a physics analogy, too. One thing we do early on is to ask how things behave on frictionless surfaces. This tells us many things--for one thing, it helps us distinguish between Aristotelian and Newtonian mechanics. Then we can more closely approximate the real world by adding complicating factors.<br /><br />The same basic Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-2292207510189731922009-04-28T23:44:00.000-04:002009-04-28T23:44:00.000-04:00I remember in my first year of graduate school my ...I remember in my first year of graduate school my Statistical Mechanics professor set one term in an equation equal to zero and said "this never happens".<br /><br />It was the expression that allowed one to compute the odds of insanely unlikely events occuring. (E.g., the odds that all of the air molecules in the room you are sitting in will happen to end up at the far end of the room at the Jim Baleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322487665818601057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-90545192544395037362009-04-28T23:01:00.000-04:002009-04-28T23:01:00.000-04:00Don't be ridiculous. You're completely missing the...Don't be ridiculous. You're completely missing the point of making such stipulations. This is not a controversial point--you get to (and in fact must) stipulate all those things in order to get at the pure version of the case.<br /><br />After that's established, then you ask how the case changes in light of adding in various degrees and types of ignorance.<br /><br />If you don't approach the Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-11956149831641478522009-04-28T22:13:00.000-04:002009-04-28T22:13:00.000-04:00If this is a purely moral question, it is importan...If this is a purely moral question, it is important to recognize that morality requires placing a personal understanding of what is known, what is unknown, and how these determinations affect what is moral (or, put another way, morally reasonable).<br /><br />These limits of knowledge (and recognition thereof) are where the law generally steps in and makes hard and fast rules based on the fact Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-6622265979497036332009-04-28T21:39:00.000-04:002009-04-28T21:39:00.000-04:00Since I think I agree with both Winston and Jim, b...Since I think I agree with both Winston and Jim, by the transitive property Winston and Jim agree (?). FWIW, I can't see a whole lot of substantive daylight between Winston's comment and Jim's further refinement in terms of emphasis.<br /><br />But Jim's subtle-seeming point of emphasis IS an important one. It's important, IMO, to set the default option on torture as one of taboo. <br /><br /Lewis Carrollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-26028124920863986562009-04-28T18:54:00.000-04:002009-04-28T18:54:00.000-04:00WS,
Perhaps we can consider these two statements...WS, <br /><br />Perhaps we can consider these two statements:<br /><I>Torture is only permissible/obligatory in really crazy kinds of cases that may never actually show up in the real world.</I>and<br /><br /><I>The really crazy kinds of cases that would make torture permissible and/or obligatory are so unlikely to show up in the real world that we are safe in ignoring them. If, by some bizarre Jim Baleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322487665818601057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-48708838543859845602009-04-28T17:02:00.000-04:002009-04-28T17:02:00.000-04:00There's a lot up there, but let me just focus on o...There's a lot up there, but let me just focus on one thing and see what happens:<br /><br />You guys seem to be focusing on law and legal obligations, whereas I'm focusing on moral obligations. I don't have much of an idea how you make law in these cases, but I would have guessed about what LC and Jim said: i.e., you make law pretty much without regard for these crazy sci-fi cases, and then deal Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-7907922001308817722009-04-28T14:39:00.000-04:002009-04-28T14:39:00.000-04:00I have to second (or third) Jim Bales here. Other...I have to second (or third) Jim Bales here. Otherwise, why have laws prohibiting <I>anything</I> at all – given that the very thing being prohibited might save us all from the horror of your choice? The cliché example, of course, is bin Laden plausibly promising to reveal the codes and location of the nuke under Manhattan, if and only if you torture an innocent young girl in his presence. ebhttp://bizarroblog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-35071862327654280672009-04-27T23:47:00.000-04:002009-04-27T23:47:00.000-04:00Man, I hate it when I'm putting together a respons...Man, I hate it when I'm putting together a response to a blog post in my head all day, go to post it, and some one else has beaten me to the punch! ;-)<br /><br />I second Lewis Carroll's:<br /><I>"So while there may ... be extreme cases where morality compels the breaking of law, I have a two word solution: jury nullification."</I>However, the two-wors solution I was planning on posting was Jim Baleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322487665818601057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-59668711022881906772009-04-27T21:15:00.000-04:002009-04-27T21:15:00.000-04:00Winston,
If I understand you correctly, I think I...Winston,<br /><br />If I understand you correctly, I think I agree. I will certainly go as far as imagining that there are potential extreme situations where torture may be morally permissible, perhaps even morally required. <br /><br />The crucial distinction that needs to be made is between morality and law. The two may intersect, though not necessarily. Overall, since I believe morality is Lewis Carrollnoreply@blogger.com