|
|
|
|
It's been implied several times over the past couple of years that I'm the kind of person who can't see the wood for the trees.
It seems to me to be asserting that I can't see humanity for the humans. And this is exactly right: I am deeply suspicious of those who deal in large-scale woolly concepts like "the good of humanity" - it is usually followed by phrases about "can't make omelettes without breaking eggs", "greatest good of greatest number" and suchlike.
What I, as an individual human, fear most is anyone who asserts that the collective rights of some mythical "humanity" outweigh the individual rights of individual human beings. There is no "humanity", there are only humans. Seeing the benefits to "humanity", rather than dealing in individual humans, leads to the obscenities of forcible sterilisation of the unfit, the poor, and members of specific ethnic groups as "eugenics". It leads to unthinking assertions about the alleged supremacy of law, without concern for the reasons for or effects of particular laws. It leads - because the ability of those who have power and privilege to delude themselves that they act from praiseworthy motives - to colonialism, invasion, economic servitude and slavery.
Let us celebrate individual trees! Let us rejoice in their diversity! Let us relish both the sapling, and those decaying fallen trunks that provide such interesting habitats.
But please, let us not say ... whatever happens to ten, or twenty, or thirty or howevermany percent of the trees, the wood is the important thing. . Each tree has value, and without trees there is no wood.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
While I support much of what you say, Law is the set of rules we consent to follow because we have granted delegated authority to others to have power to make those rules with penalties for the breaking of them.
[Updated on: Mon, 07 May 2007 22:29]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> While I support much of what you say, Law is the set of rules we consent to follow because we have granted delegated authority to others to have power to make those rules with penalties for the breaking of them.
Where a particular rule/law arises from such delegated power, I agree that we consent to follow it - though I'm not convinced that it's appropriate to issue a blanket delegation of authority when we (in the UK) have no mechanism to revoke it.
However, I am deeply concerned that the latitude in the imposition of penalties - the ability to take individual circumstances into account - that our judges have historically used (with our delegated consent) has now been greatly eroded by arbitrary political fiat.
[Updated on: Mon, 07 May 2007 22:34]
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
There is nothing quite like a cliche or well turned catch phrase to totaly muddy the waters.
Who brought up the subject of sterilization, colonization, repression and slavery?
Did I miss something? I have never read anything here advocating any of these things.
Humanity is not mythical. Humanity is the essence of what makes each of us human.... not the other way around.
If civil disobediance is your call to action then more power to you. But most people prefer to live within the constrains of the law. There are avenues available to affect change.
And as for trees.... If the world cut every one down I would consider it a personal favor. I am allergic to just about every pollen that floats on air.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
> Humanity is not mythical. Humanity is the essence of what makes each of us human.... not the other way around.
>
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humanity
I was using humanity in the first sense "all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind."
Taking humanity in the third sense - "the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence." of course I'd agree with you.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Ahhhh
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
Humanity is the entire human race; past, present and future. Human beings are only the present; when we die we are no longer a human being though we remain a part of humanity.
When we ask questions such as "What do we owe future humans?" we are referring to humanity. Do we owe humanity a livable planet? Did humanity evolve from apes?
What I see you objecting to is what people (humans) do with humanity and do to humanity; and you have reason for your concern.
We are a doomed species if we don't learn to control our greed and hate.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To me, not seeing the wood for the trees simply means getting so involved with minutiae that you can't see the whole issue.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What we see far too often, at least in my little country, is that the people who are granted both legislative and executive power on our behalf, i.e. the politicians, abdicate their positions and hand over their authority to bureaucrats and technocrats, introducing the ambiguous word 'effectiveness', which is without both heart and soul. As long as the politicians don't care, and the newsmedia close their eyes to what's going on, words and expressions like 'humanity', 'welfare', 'effective medical and social service', 'net results' etc. can be defined and re-defined at will. And indeed they are.
Thanks to our oil and gas resources our country has more money than it ever had, and is one of the richest nations on earth, per capita. But kids in our schools who, for mental or physical reasons, are unable to keep up the speed, are reduced by the accountants to numbers of loss, and both the quantity and the quality of the resources they are offered have been steadily eroding during the last twenty years.
What worries me is that no politicians, even those who eagerly portray themselves as 'humanists', either from the christian or the secular camp, seem to take any notice. Obviously, helping these kids does little to raise the status and prestige of the politicians, because what their constituents seem to want is cheaper cars, petrol and junk food and more tv channels.
[Updated on: Tue, 08 May 2007 20:06] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
guessing you're not all that utilitarian then lol
supremacy of law... or supremacy of the Rule of Law?
>However, I am deeply concerned that the latitude in the imposition of penalties - the ability to take individual circumstances into account - that our judges have historically used (with our delegated consent) has now been greatly eroded by arbitrary political fiat.
the judges latitude stems not from our consent, but lack of executive control. Historically, judges came up with their own sentencing guidelines to standardise the common law because there was no statutory guide. first this position became codified, with the Court of Appeal assuming responsibility, and then statute got more and more involved.
i'm all for the greater good though. Sometimes you have to sacrifice the few to benefit the many. its not an easy decision to make (especially when its the literal meaning of sacrifice!) but i'd rather not cherish every individual at some base level if by decreasing the cherishment given to one small group, one can exponentially increase the amount of cherishing that can be given to everyone else...
hope that makes sense lol
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Black Prince wrote:
> i'm all for the greater good though. Sometimes you have to sacrifice the few to benefit the many. its not an easy decision to make (especially when its the literal meaning of sacrifice!) but i'd rather not cherish every individual at some base level if by decreasing the cherishment given to one small group, one can exponentially increase the amount of cherishing that can be given to everyone else...
You see, that's the principle that I can't accept. To take some concrete examples:
Good - elimination of inherited/genetic diseases
Sacrifice - forcible sterilisation/castration of those expressing the disease or seen as likely to carry it: as attempted by both the UK and by several US states
Good - knowledge of how the human body reacts to stress of extreme cold, pain, immersion/drowning etc, so that effective treatment can be given.
Sacrifice - carrying out human experimentation on unwilling subjects to establish such parameters: as done by Nazis, with the results used by many major organisations including the US Navy for many years ...
you get the idea. And that's picking areas where at least there is some chance we can agree on "good" - usually, it's such a subjective area that to expect agreement is futile!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good: finding an effective cure or treatment for often terminal illnesses such as leukemia
Sacrificing: Asking certain patients, especially those with limited responses to conventional treatments to volunteer to undergo experimental, potentially dangerous/harmful treatment programs in order to develop better treatment for future sufferers.
i'm sure certain members here will recognise my example
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Black Prince wrote:
> Good: finding an effective cure or treatment for often terminal illnesses such as leukemia
> Sacrificing: Asking certain patients, especially those with limited responses to conventional treatments to volunteer to undergo experimental, potentially dangerous/harmful treatment programs in order to develop better treatment for future sufferers.
>
I don't have any problems at all with asking people to sacrifice themselves for something that they personally believe to be worthwhile - I'd like to think that there are situations where I'd do so myself.
But I think that's fundamentally different from IMPOSING such sacrifice on others (which is what the utilitarian philosophy leads to). In my view, no-one has that moral right.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there's degrees of course...
sometimes the situation demands sacrifice.
i was watching an episode of West Wing Season 7 yesterday called Duck & Cover.
In the episode, there is a problem with the San Andreo, California.
A valve in the reactor had failed, causing a coolant leak, and a second vale had failed, allowing radioactive steam to escape into an auxillary building not built to contain the pressure. The president ordered a team of Engineers from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission into the containment building to manually close the first valve. The NRC Head and FEMA director say they should be in there a max of 15 minutes. It takes them 17 minutes to close the valve. As they are finishing up, someone asks about the secondary valve. The pressure in the auxillary building is increasing. If they don't stop the flow soon they'd have to vent radioactive steam into the atmosphere, or risk an explosion.
What do you do? order a second team to face exposure, order the first team to stay and try and fix the second valve? Risk a radioactive explosion that would scatter radiation over southern california?
The president ordered the first team to fix the second vale as well. They were inside the containment building for 32 minutes. After they leave, they are both shortly hospitalised for acute radiation sickness, and one dies.
The lives of the few for the lives of the many.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Black Prince wrote:
> What do you do? order a second team to face exposure, order the first team to stay and try and fix the second valve? Risk a radioactive explosion that would scatter radiation over southern california?
>
> The president ordered the first team to fix the second vale as well. They were inside the containment building for 32 minutes. After they leave, they are both shortly hospitalised for acute radiation sickness, and one dies.
>
> The lives of the few for the lives of the many.
I would not "order" - I would "ask", is the general principle. (Frankly, in that situation, if I were to order and they were to refuse, I'd seem to have little practical way of enforcing the order). Their choice to sacrifice themselves - not mine.
Actually, I regard nuclear (fission) power as an area where "greatest good of greatest number" has been wrongly applied, and disagree with it: for me, the risks of radiation damage (and, more remotely, uncontrolled meltdown) are sacrifices that I in my everyday life would not have chosen to make.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Black Prince wrote:
sometimes the situation demands sacrifice.
I feel that although our ethics must perforce derive from two different channels, very often the teachings of my own tradition echo ideas that NW expresses here. Forgive a long post, but I would like to illustrate with two stories.
The first comes from a rabbi who was taken together with all his flock to a Nazi death camp. He survived and set down some of the terrible religious instructions that he was asked to render there. (The name of his book is "From the Depths".) On one occasion the Nazis were choosing young victims by height. One father came to his rabbi in tears: his son was a true genius (and the rabbi knew this to be true) but he was of the height that he was most liable to be selected. Perhaps one of the boy's friends could be substituted in order to save the young prodigy. The rabbi was asked whether this was permitted according to Jewish law. His response, through anguished tears, was: "We may never substitute one life for another." (The rule is that one life [or more] may not be sacrificed to save another.)
The second story is from the Talmud (more than 1500 years ago). A rabbi was approached by a man who was being threatened by criminal bullies. They were threatening to kill him unless he killed a certain third party. His query was whether he was permitted to do so in order to save his life. The rabbi told him that if no other way out could be found he must be prepared to die rather than kill this person. He then added: "Is your blood redder than his?!"
J F R
[Updated on: Thu, 10 May 2007 08:56]
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>i'm all for the greater good though. Sometimes you have to sacrifice the few to benefit the many. its not an easy decision to make (especially when its the literal meaning of sacrifice!) but i'd rather not cherish every individual at some base level if by decreasing the cherishment given to one small group, one can exponentially increase the amount of cherishing that can be given to everyone else...
I think that any society that does not uphold the rights of the individual takes the chance of losing the rights of all. The "many" are quick to determine that their own interests are paramount and it is better to sacrifice the few for the "greater good". But who determines what IS the "greater good" if not the majority? And by what reasoning or rationale do they use to determine it? In my country the Evangelical majority has decided that to allow gays and lesbians to marry will somehow destroy the family. Also, my government has decided that they can ignore all our established laws (and constitutional guarantees) in order to torture, incarcerate and punish any non-American whom they even suspicion may be helping the cause of terrorism. Both of the above in the name of the greater good.
Please, keep me free of any government that will dictate that I sacrifice any personal right to choose what I wear, eat, think or whom I love - all in the name of the greater good.
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i take your point.
Our law in the UK has the same principle. Duress/Necessity is not strictly speaking a defence to murder. You cannot say, i killed him because someone else threatened to kill my wife. Its no defence. The law says who are you to judge whether one life is more or less worthy than another.
the law stems from an old case, R v Dudley and Stevens [1884] 14 QBD 273 DC
In this case the yaught Mignonette was wrecked off the Cape of Good Hope. The captain, 2 crew, and the cabin boy survived in a 13ft lifeboat. They had limited food and no water. Trehy survived for 13 days, by which time their supplies ran out. Dudley proposed that the boy, Parker, be killed and eaten to allow the rest to survive. Parker was ill, due to hunger and drinking sea water, and was unconscious. Stephens the Captain, agreed, providing no boat was in site the next day. Brooks, the third man disagreed. With no boat in site, Parker was duly killed, and all 3 fed upon his body and drank his blood. The next day they were rescued by a german boat.
Dudley and Stephens were charged with Murder, the judge refused to allow a defence of necessity, and were found guilty and sentenced to death. At the trail, even Parker's relatives (all sea farers) testified that his death was justified.
The sentence was later commuted to six months imprisonment by Lord Coleridge the Lord Chief Justice, on direct instruction from Queen Victoria.
That was the law as it stood until a couple of years ago, when the House of Lords faced a series of difficult decisions in medical necessity cases.
Take, for example, the case of the Conjoined Twins. Two babies, conjoined. Leaving both together, and both are likely to die. Separate them, and the weaker of the 2 will definitely die. Doctors applied for a court order saying it was legal for them to perform the separation to save the life of the stronger baby, despite the fact that this would guarantee the death of the weaker, and therefore mean the doctors were failing in their duty to preserve her life.
House of Lords ruled the operation was lawful.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
NW, you are being distinctly naughty! Inverted logic is the tool of the propagandist rather than the philosophical thinker.
You certainly have me in mind when you dismiss sentiments like ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’; that, as I have said many times, is my idea of the ultimate morality. But never have I suggested that anyone should be singled out for inhumane treatment in order to achieve that objective. Rather, I have argued that ‘fashionable’ provision for minorities is wrong; we should always look at the broader picture. The example I usually quote – because it is almost literally on my doorstep – is a footbridge, designed specifically for disabled users, crossing a busy road. As constructed, the only access was by widely circulating ramps, offering ease of access to those in wheelchairs but involving a substantial detour for the able-bodied. Only after two teenagers had died, in separate incidents, while attempting to cross the road beneath the bridge, was stepped access to the bridge deck provided. Furthermore – and we are talking rural areas here – there are, so far as I can establish, no registered disabled persons – in fact, not all that many persons of any description – within a mile of the side of the bridge furthest from the village. So two kids died for no valid reason. That’s what I mean by considering the greatest good of the greatest number.
To dismiss the concept of ‘humanity’ is trite in the extreme. Mutual social responsibility may be dead in the South-East, but it hangs on – albeit tenuously – in the North-East, and I’m wholly committed to keeping it that way. I’ll have no truck with utilitarian philosophy, not do I see such a philosophy as an inevitable, nor even as a remotely possible end result of my argument. My whole approach is founded upon balance, and balance is anathema to the utilitarian. I can’t reconcile your dismissal of ‘humanity’ with your apparent eagerness to introduce the ‘utilitarian’ concept.
Never would I subscribe to the Nazi utilisation of minorities for scientific research, but you do rather disappoint me by introducing emotive words like ‘castration’ or ‘sterilisation’ in considering those who carry potentially debilitating or fatal genetic conditions. In our present state of knowledge, I see little moral difference between transmission (or, at least, likely transmission) of AIDS and transmission of any other potentially fatal disease. I don’t advocate castration or sterilisation of potential carriers but when – and it may not be far away – genetic transmission of debilitating conditions can be prevented by indirect insemination (allowing for modification to repair or remove the defective gene), refusal to comply would become difficult, if not impossible to justify.
In any event, absolute freedom is philosophically unacceptable in any model of an ideal society, because one person’s freedom impinges upon the freedom of others. I would strongly object to your being free to bring about my premature end! There must always be a balance between freedom and responsibility. We expect AIDS carriers to be responsible; why is it unreasonable to expect carriers of conditions such as Huntingdon’s Chorea or Muscular Dystrophy to exercise similar responsibility? Such an expectation falls far short of advocating sterilisation or castration.
As ever, I reject your argument whilst maintaining my high regard for your integrity!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie!!
Big Big Hugs! Two big cossie-posts to read, both in your inimitable style!
OK, where to start?
cossie wrote:
> NW, you are being distinctly naughty!
(opportunity would be a fine thing !)
> Inverted logic is the tool of the propagandist rather than the philosophical thinker.
>
> You certainly have me in mind when you dismiss sentiments like ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’; that, as I have said many times, is my idea of the ultimate morality. But never have I suggested that anyone should be singled out for inhumane treatment in order to achieve that objective. Rather, I have argued that ‘fashionable’ provision for minorities is wrong; we should always look at the broader picture. The example I usually quote – because it is almost literally on my doorstep – is a footbridge, designed specifically for disabled users, crossing a busy road. As constructed, the only access was by widely circulating ramps, offering ease of access to those in wheelchairs but involving a substantial detour for the able-bodied. Only after two teenagers had died, in separate incidents, while attempting to cross the road beneath the bridge, was stepped access to the bridge deck provided. Furthermore – and we are talking rural areas here – there are, so far as I can establish, no registered disabled persons – in fact, not all that many persons of any description – within a mile of the side of the bridge furthest from the village. So two kids died for no valid reason. That’s what I mean by considering the greatest good of the greatest number.
Well, I had you in mind among others, but I was responding to the (I consider) daft idea that some abstract "whole" has a more important existence than the constituent individual parts. As for "greatest good of greatest number" , your example above - as I'm perfectly sure you know - is about nothing of the kind: all such accesses should be designed for BOTH foot traffic and wheels (and it ISN'T just "the disabled" - it's clearly too long since you pushed a baby-buggy!) It is only about the incompetence of local government ...
>
> To dismiss the concept of ‘humanity’ is trite in the extreme. Mutual social responsibility may be dead in the South-East, but it hangs on – albeit tenuously – in the North-East, and I’m wholly committed to keeping it that way. I’ll have no truck with utilitarian philosophy, not do I see such a philosophy as an inevitable, nor even as a remotely possible end result of my argument. My whole approach is founded upon balance, and balance is anathema to the utilitarian. I can’t reconcile your dismissal of ‘humanity’ with your apparent eagerness to introduce the ‘utilitarian’ concept.
I'm absolutely NOT a utilitarian - what gave you that idea? But "greatest good of greatest number" is precisely that. It is the thought-child of Jeremy Bentham, (whose preserved body, in formal clothes of the first part of the nineteenth century, used to look down on me as I drank coffee as a student at UCL). The fact that others (John Stuart Mill, etc) have tried to qualify it does not detract from the fact that the big failure of ulitarianism is that it does NOT, inherently, safeguard minorities. "Greatest good of greatest number" is not a balanced concept - it's a completely unbalanced one. If you, cossie, balance it against individual welfare, then I think that you have to say in what circumstances / by what guidelines you perform such balancing.
As regards mutual social responsibility, it's something that I hope I display, and that I hope others can be persuaded to show. Indeed, it's a fundamental belief of mine that most people do! But that is personal choice (except as noted in timmy's post about implied consent).
> Never would I subscribe to the Nazi utilisation of minorities for scientific research, but you do rather disappoint me by introducing emotive words like ‘castration’ or ‘sterilisation’ in considering those who carry potentially debilitating or fatal genetic conditions.
Not half as "disappointed" as those to whom this was done, I should think! It is a matter of historical record. Wikipedia - admittedly unreliable - tells me that the last forcible sterilisation carried out by the Board of Eugenics in Oregon, USA was in 1981 - this is exactly half my lifetime go, and I'm not *that* old.
> In our present state of knowledge, I see little moral difference between transmission (or, at least, likely transmission) of AIDS and transmission of any other potentially fatal disease. I don’t advocate castration or sterilisation of potential carriers but when – and it may not be far away – genetic transmission of debilitating conditions can be prevented by indirect insemination (allowing for modification to repair or remove the defective gene), refusal to comply would become difficult, if not impossible to justify.
> In any event, absolute freedom is philosophically unacceptable in any model of an ideal society, because one person’s freedom impinges upon the freedom of others. I would strongly object to your being free to bring about my premature end! There must always be a balance between freedom and responsibility. We expect AIDS carriers to be responsible; why is it unreasonable to expect carriers of conditions such as Huntingdon’s Chorea or Muscular Dystrophy to exercise similar responsibility? Such an expectation falls far short of advocating sterilisation or castration.
So, you would forcibly impose genetic modification treatment for a heritable disease on someone who was unwilling to receive it, or forcibly prevent them from having children? I certainly would not - I regard it as morally abhorrent, even if it could be conclusively shown that there were no circumstances whatsoever in which such genes conferred a survival advantage (which has not been established for - I think - any such heritable condition). This is precisely the kind of "moral authority over others to do things to them for the good of humanity" that "greatest good" thinking leads to. You are perfectly at liberty to ask, or to seek to persuade, but I do not feel that you may compel. If you do compel a medical treatment against someone's will, then I see no difference from "sterilisation or castration". If you don't compel, then we have nothing to argue about!
Of course I push the arguments to an extreme position - that seems to be the debating style here! (I've grown accustomed to any mention of pacifism generating a comment about the Third Reich within three posts ...) But it is underpinned by a firm conviction that in matters of individual liberty, no compromise is possible. It is important to note that I am using liberty in strictly in the sense of "freedom FROM interference" - it is a philosophically different issue from "freedom TO interfere with others", and it is rather a pity that we don't have different words to cover negative and positive freedoms.
>
> As ever, I reject your argument whilst maintaining my high regard for your integrity!
The regard is mutual. It is a great delight to have you back: as always, your courtesy and your well-presented arguments are a joy. But on this one, I don't think that we'll find a meeting of minds, though in practice I suspect that we might have a lot of common ground.
NW
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE SUBJECT of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will ... but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual...
... It was now perceived that such phrases as "self-government," and "the power of the people over themselves," do not express the true state of the case. The "people" who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised; and the "self-government" spoken of is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power. The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein...
... The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
From John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1869
These quotations have been brought to you by a die-in-the-wool Radical Liberal. ;-D
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good to see you again, Cossie, and in style!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks JFR. I admit, it's been a while since I read that, and it does pretty much sum up the way that I feel about things.
But my memory (from the several decades ago when I studied such things) is that John Stuart Mill struggled a bit to reconcile this with "greatest happiness of greatest number", regardless of the assorted definitions and grades of happiness and good which Mill proposed.
Indeed, I suspect that this, which is a fundamental moral question, is insoluble, in that the two concepts only have meaning in different moral universes - that, in fact, they are incommensurable.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Lead me to those damn' trees!
I think the difference between us is, in essence, a matter of scale. Although I use the Benthamesque phrase 'the greatest good of the greatest number', I tend to argue within the confines of the issue under consideration. To me 'the greatest number' is not an amorphous mass; it consists of a finite group of real people who are in some way affected by that issue.
Thus I consider that the footbridge is a relevant example. It impacts upon the wider community as well as the disabled (and, as you say, the buggy pushers!). And I have to say that I believe that the deficient design owes more to the prevalent 'PC' mindset than to simple incompetence - though, admittedly, I regard the very concept of PC as a manifestation of the worst kind of practical incompetence.
I guess that I'm a touch anti-disabled at the moment. As you'll be aware, the AEC Routemaster, the iconic London Bus, was finally withdrawn from ordinary commercial service last year, after 40 years of use. It lasted so long because the open platform and conductor service enabled passengers to mount and dismount very much faster than was possible with one-man operation - a huge advantage in Central London. I have a lifelong interest in transport history though, personally, I never liked the Routemaster; it WAS an icon, but it was far from user-friendly for the disabled (and, of course, the buggy-pushers) and in today's traffic the open rear platform was a danger which set lawsuits spinning before management eyes. I do not mourn its passing. However, Transport for London came up with the idea of using preserved Routemasters on two short tourist routes in Central London. These routes are wholly duplicated by frequent ordinary commercial services using low-floor, disability- (and buggy-) friendly buses. Yet the disabled lobby is petitioning for the withdrawal of these tourist services because the buses do not meet modern standards - and, what's worse, their voice is apparently being heard. I abhor this attitude of 'if we can't have it, you can't have it either'.
Right. End of rant. Back to the point!
I didn't intend to imply that you were utilitarian; you obviously aren't! But 'the greatest good of the greatest number' isn't necessarily a utilitarian concept. I think that our first exchange was about this very point. In the aftermath of 9/11 (or, as we Brits would put it, 11/9) I put forward the scenario of a Canadian domestic flight from Winnipeg to Ottowa leaving its flight path and flying down Lake Michigan. Radio contact was lost and intelligence sources were aware of a possible terrorist attack on the Sears Tower in Chicago. With two minutes to spare before the aircraft is flying over populated land, do you shoot it down, with the loss of around 100 lives, or accept the risk that it is indeed on a terrorist mission which, if successful, would result in the loss of many thousands of lives? You can guess the way I'd jump, but my point is simply that 'the greatest number' is a real, large but finite group of innocent people.
So when I talk of balance, my stance is that one should weigh the impact upon all those affected by an issue. I COULD argue philosophy on a broad canvas, but I'm essentially a practical guy - my forte has always been the intelligent application of general principles to specific situations. In any event, I don't think that this Message Board is quite ready for abstract philosophy; it's not exactly a fun topic!
Applying my 'take' to the issue of heritable degenerative conditions, I do take account of a larger 'humanity'; I include the children yet unborn who will fall victim to these conditions. And, incidentally, though I mentioned only two such conditions, there are in fact over twenty of them. I didn't like your emotive language because it was just that - emotive. I have never suggested or condoned sterilisation or castration; both involve removal of the basic human (or, indeed, animal) right to reproduce. Indirect insemination would NOT deny that right; it would simply ensure that succeeding generations were spared the misery of avoidable degenerative disease - and, of course, it would be a once-only intervention; when the defective gene had been dealt with there would be no need for future intervention. This view parallels my view of religious sects who reject blood transfusions; I have no problem with adults who choose to die rather than accept donated blood - but I DO have a very large problem with parents who refuse life-saving transfusions for their children.
I am not a disciple of John Stuart Mill, but I have a high regard for his insight. However, in the extract quoted by JFR, I doubt whether he had the unborn in mind. I suspect that, had the point been raised, he would have grouped the unborn with 'us' rather than 'them'. But we can never know.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> Lead me to those damn' trees!
>
> I think the difference between us is, in essence, a matter of scale. Although I use the Benthamesque phrase 'the greatest good of the greatest number', I tend to argue within the confines of the issue under consideration. To me 'the greatest number' is not an amorphous mass; it consists of a finite group of real people who are in some way affected by that issue.
That presupposes that you can identify a "finite group of real people" - which is not often the case. Now who is looking at the trees?
>
As regards your "rant" there's a big difference between what most disabled people feel, and the political posturings of a minority: as a disabled person myself I would hate you to think that the anti-routemaster mob were typical!
>
> Right. End of rant. Back to the point!
>
> I didn't intend to imply that you were utilitarian; you obviously aren't! But 'the greatest good of the greatest number' isn't necessarily a utilitarian concept. I think that our first exchange was about this very point. In the aftermath of 9/11 (or, as we Brits would put it, 11/9) I put forward the scenario of a Canadian domestic flight from Winnipeg to Ottowa leaving its flight path and flying down Lake Michigan. Radio contact was lost and intelligence sources were aware of a possible terrorist attack on the Sears Tower in Chicago. With two minutes to spare before the aircraft is flying over populated land, do you shoot it down, with the loss of around 100 lives, or accept the risk that it is indeed on a terrorist mission which, if successful, would result in the loss of many thousands of lives? You can guess the way I'd jump, but my point is simply that 'the greatest number' is a real, large but finite group of innocent people.
My point, made then I think, is that there very rarely IS a definable finite group of people in some way affected: in your aircraft scenario, there may be reaction/over-reaction by government - up to "war on terror" leading to loss of liberty at home and foreign invasion; there may be further attacks in reaction to that, failure to succeed with an aircraft may lead to a later successful attempt with chemical or biological agents ... life does NOT usually come with neat boundaries. We are all - for better, for worse, - bound together in intricate ways.
>
> So when I talk of balance, my stance is that one should weigh the impact upon all those affected by an issue. I COULD argue philosophy on a broad canvas, but I'm essentially a practical guy - my forte has always been the intelligent application of general principles to specific situations. In any event, I don't think that this Message Board is quite ready for abstract philosophy; it's not exactly a fun topic!
The only problem with applying general principles to specific situations is if one fails to take care that the general principle is in fact general, and does in fact apply. This isn't a stage that can be skipped: to do so will inevitably result in injustice sooner or later.
>
> Applying my 'take' to the issue of heritable degenerative conditions, I do take account of a larger 'humanity'; I include the children yet unborn who will fall victim to these conditions. And, incidentally, though I mentioned only two such conditions, there are in fact over twenty of them. I didn't like your emotive language because it was just that - emotive. I have never suggested or condoned sterilisation or castration; both involve removal of the basic human (or, indeed, animal) right to reproduce. Indirect insemination would NOT deny that right; it would simply ensure that succeeding generations were spared the misery of avoidable degenerative disease - and, of course, it would be a once-only intervention; when the defective gene had been dealt with there would be no need for future intervention. This view parallels my view of religious sects who reject blood transfusions; I have no problem with adults who choose to die rather than accept donated blood - but I DO have a very large problem with parents who refuse life-saving transfusions for their children.
I don't understand what you are saying. If you permit people with heritable conditions only to reproduce indirectly (via in-vitro correction of the heritable condition), then you must, ultimately, have a way of enforcing this - "normal" reproduction would defeat the point of it. Whether this enforcement is by permanent chemical contraception, a chastity belt welded on, or invasive physical methods seems to me to be irrelevant.
Parents and children are a whole different issue, and things are rarely clear-cut ... I'm not going to rise to that one on this occasion 'cos it's loaded, and because there are complex questions on which I'm genuinely unable to form a coherent view - like the Deaf children / Deaf culture debate, for example..
> I am not a disciple of John Stuart Mill, but I have a high regard for his insight. However, in the extract quoted by JFR, I doubt whether he had the unborn in mind. I suspect that, had the point been raised, he would have grouped the unborn with 'us' rather than 'them'. But we can never know.
As far as I remember Mill was excellent on general principles, but then wriggling to make them do what he wanted them to - but then, probably, so do most of us!
To sum up, for me it isn't enough to say "This is broad-leaf woodland so the trees will shed their leaves" ... if we are considering a tree, we must first check that it isn't a random pine-tree which keeps its needles! That should not render us oblivious to the general nature of the woodland, but we must not transfer general principles to specific cases without checking their validity, and must try to be aware of other principles that may apply.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Hi, NW!
You say that it is often not possible to identify a ‘finite group of real people’. That’s a sweeping statement I simply can’t accept. As I’ve already said, I tend to think philosophically at a ‘hands on’ level, and in that context there is almost always a definable ‘greatest number’. In the case of the footbridge it was the population likely to wish to cross the road at that point – probably less than 2000 individuals all told. In the aircraft scenario the ‘greatest number’ embraces all those working in or adjacent to the Sears tower – a significantly larger number, but clearly still finite. And, incidentally, as a long-time supporter of The Woodland Trust I am able to confirm that a wood consists of a finite number of trees!
As regards the ‘rant’, I apologise for failing to check and quote the source of the objection to the use of Routemasters on the two tourist routes – ten Routemasters out of 7000+ buses operating in London, less than 0.0015% of the total. The objection came from the Disability Rights Commission – not exactly a fringe group! According to reports in the transport press, a formal objection was raised with Transport for London, claiming that the Routemasters were (I quote)‘a bashed-up relic from a bygone age’, and stating that in the Commission’s view it was ‘a disappointment that some of (these) vehicles are still in service’. Grrr!
Turning to your comments about the aircraft scenario, none of the ‘second tier’ consequences you list are in fact direct consequences of the action I proposed; the same results might just as likely follow from a successful attack. The only significant difference between action and inaction is that the former would reduce the death toll by at least 95%.
I don’t follow your argument about general principles. Yes, a decision maker should be aware of general principles, but there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. What is important is the immediate issue, and general principles are only relevant insofar as they impinge directly upon that issue. Put another way, I do strongly believe in working on a small canvas. A solution to a specific social problem in South Shields may be wholly inappropriate in resolving a similar problem in Sacramento, Sarajevo or Soweto – but if it works in South Shields, we learn from the precedent and can adapt it to other locations. It would NOT be sensible to consider the possible outcomes in other countries in solving the problem local to South Shields – but, in essence, that is what you seem to be implying.
Moving on to heritable conditions, you are (with due and obsequious respect, etc, etc!) going so far over the top as to be almost out of sight! Think about the parallel I drew with HIV carriers. I’d suggest that the vast majority of the UK/US population would agree that for an HIV carrier to indulge in unprotected sex is reprehensible and, in some circumstances, criminal. That is not to suggest that HIV carriers should not have sex; it just means that they should accept responsibility for taking appropriate precautions. All I am suggesting is that when heritable conditions can be eradicated by in-vitro techniques it would be equally irresponsible for carriers to do other than avoid unprotected sex and to take advantage of the treatment when they wish to have children. I don’t advocate any of the colourful enforcement procedures you mention; public opinion should be sufficient. After all, given that sexual relations are possible and that in-vitro techniques are available, anyone refusing to comply is effectively saying ‘I demand the right to have a child who will almost certainly have a debilitating and possible life-threatening condition which will severely impair his or her quality of life’. Is that unreasonably selfish, or is that unreasonably selfish? And, of course, this is not about the freedom of the individual in isolation – it involves the ‘us’ aspect of John Stuart Mills’ qualification in the passage quoted by JFR; I’d argue that the unborn child is one of ‘us’.
Finally, I don’t think your tree analogy really works. The ‘opposite’ of broadleaved is coniferous, whilst the opposite of deciduous is evergreen – and there are evergreen broadleaves and deciduous conifers! Of course, I think I know what you mean, but my position is that I would check for a pine tree, but if I didn’t find one I wouldn’t feel obliged to make provision for it. If, however, a coniferous seedling appeared at a later date, I would happily adapt my scheme to take account of it.
There is neither black nor white in philosophy, only shades of grey – and we should always be ready to add more water or more pigment when we discern a need to do so.
Hey, NW – after nearly three months out of action, it’s great to be able to argue with someone again!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we've nearly exhausted this one, but there are a couple of points -
> Moving on to heritable conditions, you are (with due and obsequious respect, etc, etc!) going so far over the top as to be almost out of sight! Think about the parallel I drew with HIV carriers. I’d suggest that the vast majority of the UK/US population would agree that for an HIV carrier to indulge in unprotected sex is reprehensible and, in some circumstances, criminal. That is not to suggest that HIV carriers should not have sex; it just means that they should accept responsibility for taking appropriate precautions. All I am suggesting is that when heritable conditions can be eradicated by in-vitro techniques it would be equally irresponsible for carriers to do other than avoid unprotected sex and to take advantage of the treatment when they wish to have children. I don’t advocate any of the colourful enforcement procedures you mention; public opinion should be sufficient.
I've said rather frequently that I don't object to attempted persuasion, merely to enforcement. As you are apparently NOT advocating enforcement, contrary to the impression I had earlier, there is no difference between us on this.
> Finally, I don’t think your tree analogy really works. The ‘opposite’ of broadleaved is coniferous, whilst the opposite of deciduous is evergreen – and there are evergreen broadleaves and deciduous conifers!
Pedant point - I specified pine, not conifer, in my analogy because while there are deciduous conifers like larch (genus larix), there aren't - as far as I know - deciduous pines (genus pinus).
> Hey, NW – after nearly three months out of action, it’s great to be able to argue with someone again!
'tis a joy to have you back!
My own presence here will be variable for the next week or so, as real-world claims my attention ...
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... why should Deej and JFR have all the fun?
But I agree that as regards this thread the time has come for a cyber- handshake to acknowledge an honourable stalemate!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
