Ends and means by SignyM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
If you are able to prevent all torture, or wiretapping, or photometric IDing, or your tyranny of choice - even if you know that preventing such torture, etc. will cost lives - does that make you in some way responsible for those lives which will be lost?
How many lives lost? How many people tortured?

Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if it's torture. Doesn't matter if it's lives saved.

If you (editorial 'you') make a decision - based on your ethics and morals - that can impact others, do you just go off in a cloud of self-satisfaction at having done 'the right thing', or do you acknowledge that your decision may hurt others and take at least some level of responsibility for that?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:31 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So then, it could be argued that lives would be saved if every firearm in the country was confiscated. Are you willing to allow that? And if not, are you willing to accept responsibility for all the gun-related deaths?

No, and Yes. Now comes the discussion about levels of responsibility. Maybe fodder for another time.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:39 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
No, I am not willing for others to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked, or partially drowned. Not even to save lives.

I am absolutely responsible for any lives lost due to this policy.

Good. That's all I wanted to know - that you accept responsibility for your actions/decisions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:49 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
No, I am not willing for others to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked, or partially drowned. Not even to save lives.

I am absolutely responsible for any lives lost due to this policy.

Good. That's all I wanted to know - that you accept responsibility for your actions/decisions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Not arguing against the concept of responsibility and consequences, here. Just asking a question...

When it comes to responsibility, do all options have to be considered as valid and thus subject to choice and responsibility?

If, say, I could eliminate the chance of my people being threatened by another people... by comitting genocide upon my enemy, am I responsible for any occurring attacks if I do not go down the roat of mass murder?

Or is there a point where responsibility ends along with what can be reasonably considered a choice? As in, a valid option worthy of consideration.

I personally think that there is a line and that the location of that line is the real trouble, not so much the question of whether responsibility must be accepted at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If you (editorial 'you') make a decision - based on your ethics and morals - that can impact others, do you just go off in a cloud of self-satisfaction at having done 'the right thing', or do you acknowledge that your decision may hurt others and take at least some level of responsibility for that?

Of course. (Do you?) That's why I think we should look very carefully at results and not gloss it over with "Fighting for freedom" or "Anti-communism" and go off in a cloud of self-satisfaction, knowing we've done "the right thing".

What I'm arguing for, I guess, is a realistic assessment of whether our methods are achieving the desired results, or are we just causing more problems? Or perhaps, are we not acknowledging our REAL motives?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If someone is really interested in promoting democracy and not just mouthing words, simple feedback over time would make them realize that democracy was decreasing at the hands of the dictators, rather than increasing. They would therefore choose different means. If they keep on doing the same thing, then their actions speak louder than their words.

Rue said it better than I did. Now, I would suppose that if people keep on doing the same thing over and over again, despite the fact that it is clearly not working (Case in point: We have both the highest incarceration rate AND the highest crime rate of the developed world. Something's not working!) then I can only conclude one of several things:

The actors are so brainwashed they are incapable of learning.
The info isn't getting out there.
The culture is ossified to the point of self-destruction.
The stated goals aren't the real goals, only rationalizations.
Some combination.

But I'm still wondering if there is a lesson to be drawn from history. "It's OK to use less ethical methods because it works in situations of...." or "In X of Y cases, methods inconsistent with the basic philosophy will create bigger problems in Z years".
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:22 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
No, I am not willing for others to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked, or partially drowned. Not even to save lives.

I am absolutely responsible for any lives lost due to this policy.

Good. That's all I wanted to know - that you accept responsibility for your actions/decisions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Not arguing against the concept of responsibility and consequences, here. Just asking a question...

When it comes to responsibility, do all options have to be considered as valid and thus subject to choice and responsibility?

If, say, I could eliminate the chance of my people being threatened by another people... by comitting genocide upon my enemy, am I responsible for any occurring attacks if I do not go down the roat of mass murder?

Or is there a point where responsibility ends along with what can be reasonably considered a choice? As in, a valid option worthy of consideration.

I personally think that there is a line and that the location of that line is the real trouble, not so much the question of whether responsibility must be accepted at all.

Hello Agentrouka,

Of COURSE you are responsible for any lives lost as a result of your decision not to commit genocide.

You are ALSO responsible for the lives saved by your decision not to commit genocide.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:48 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
No, I am not willing for others to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked, or partially drowned. Not even to save lives.

I am absolutely responsible for any lives lost due to this policy.

Good. That's all I wanted to know - that you accept responsibility for your actions/decisions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Not arguing against the concept of responsibility and consequences, here. Just asking a question...

When it comes to responsibility, do all options have to be considered as valid and thus subject to choice and responsibility?

If, say, I could eliminate the chance of my people being threatened by another people... by comitting genocide upon my enemy, am I responsible for any occurring attacks if I do not go down the roat of mass murder?

Or is there a point where responsibility ends along with what can be reasonably considered a choice? As in, a valid option worthy of consideration.

I personally think that there is a line and that the location of that line is the real trouble, not so much the question of whether responsibility must be accepted at all.

Hello Agentrouka,

Of COURSE you are responsible for any lives lost as a result of your decision not to commit genocide.

You are ALSO responsible for the lives saved by your decision not to commit genocide.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

I see what you mean. And I mostly agree.

It's the practical application that I'm concerned about. Hypothetically, philosophically, theoretically, everything is a choice and we weigh our responsibilities against each other to reach a balance we can accept.

But, practically, I think certain things should be off the table, out of the question, not up for discussion. Whether someone is comfortable with accepting responsibility for them or not.

Genocide is not brought up much in discussion as a "valid" choice. Torture is.

That's my concern. That line of practical acceptance is fluid and changing. I'd rather it move away from accepting torture and putting it into the same "off" category as genocide.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:00 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Agentrouka,

In a free society, all options are valid for discussion. What makes it an 'invalid' choice is that we resoundingly condemn it when it comes up for discussion.

And that's something I hope to see regularly.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:04 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Agentrouka,

In a free society, all options are valid for discussion. What makes it an 'invalid' choice is that we resoundingly condemn it when it comes up for discussion.

And that's something I hope to see regularly.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Dang. You keep making sense and ruining my attempt at dictating my version of Correct Conduct to the world.

Obviously, we will have to continue thinking for ourselves and struggling with each other's differences. I guess that's the best it can ever get, good and bad sides though it has.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"We are built to use any means to our ends. We need to create systems to rise above our natures."

I don't want to derail the discussion, but I wanted to point out that I consider 'human nature' arguments to be invalid, though, sadly, largely self-fulfilling. We live in a society that teaches us that excess material possessions, greed and competition are good and a law of nature (social 'Darwinism' - damn, there's another 'ism'). And we're shaped by our ideas of what we are. Other societies have different ideas and therefore demonstrate a different 'type' of human nature. Some are peaceable (Canadians) others murderous (the US). Some are patriarchal (Pakistan) others sexually egalitarian (Norway). Some are essentially happy (Denmark) others unhappy (Japan).

So to say 'human nature is XXX' is an invalid argument.

One thing SignyM pm'd is an interesting idea. That people are born with a capacity for empathy, that once invoked, literally changes the way they view the world.
Here were some examples:
1 the tough cha chas in LA who were so moved by the plight of Afghani women under the Taliban they started an aid program and along the way gave up their gansta' ways
2 the program that makes non-violent troubled youth into mentors to severely disabled children, which turns the lives around of nearly all the troubled children
3 the girl who puts up with sexual abuse until daddy goes after the younger sister

What SignyM pointed out that was interesting was that these people live their lives without sympathy for themselves. But the capacity for empathy for others is there in many people, and once sparked, it changes the entire way they view the world and themselves.

Anyway --- carry on.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:50 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
If you (editorial 'you') make a decision - based on your ethics and morals - that can impact others, do you just go off in a cloud of self-satisfaction at having done 'the right thing', or do you acknowledge that your decision may hurt others and take at least some level of responsibility for that?
Of course. (Do you?) That's why I think we should look very carefully at results and not gloss it over with "Fighting for freedom" or "Anti-communism" and go off in a cloud of self-satisfaction, knowing we've done "the right thing".

My original statement was "Realize that if we do this (stand on our morals/ethics regardless), we must be willing to sacrifice some of our own if the means to save them goes beyond those 'hard and fast (moral) rules'. We might want to check with everybody first, to see which set of rules they're really willing to die for."

Because regardless of whether you as an individual are willing to take responsibility for risking other people's lives to meet your moral guidelines, those other people might want to have a say in that decision as well - and they might have a different view of what morals/ethics are worth sacrificing themselves for.

Quote:
What I'm arguing for, I guess, is a realistic assessment of whether our methods are achieving the desired results, or are we just causing more problems?

You mean, is the application of the methods supported by the achievement of the desired results? Or, to put it another way, do the ends justify the means?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:07 PM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
No, I am not willing for others to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked, or partially drowned. Not even to save lives.

I am absolutely responsible for any lives lost due to this policy.

Good. That's all I wanted to know - that you accept responsibility for your actions/decisions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I don't know if I accept that; there's only one group who can truly be held 'responsible', and that is the terrorists (or whoever the perpetrator is). Assigning responsibility else where walks into accepting the logic of 'It was her fault she was raped.' On the other hand, I fully acknowledge there is a trade off between choices; but I tend to the 'those who would sacrifice liberty for security are likely to end up with neither' school of thought. I accept this influences the nature of the world; but that does not mean I accept responsibility for the actions of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:04 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Rue,

I laud your desire to elevate humans above my morose predictions of our predatory nature.

However, if we could rely on Human Empathy and other Human Virtues to be the ambassadors and saviors of mankind, we would hardly need to make torture illegal. Sadly, demonstrations of Empathy tend to fade when our darker emotional capacities are tapped.

I will concede that perhaps Human Empathy and related virtues are what give us the strength and determination to outlaw practices to which we would gleefully succumb in the heat or desperation of a difficult moment.

At least, though, I think you will agree that even if the whole of human nature is not dark and predatory, there is at least that aspect within each of us that must be protected against. Not, as some might suggest, by restricting our freedoms and liberties... But rather by enforcing them to the bitter end.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:54 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Anthony

I think most humans (not all) are born with a capacity for empathy. But even 'sight' has to be developed, and the same is true for empathy. It can be neglected or ground out of people; and fail to develop or be erased. Western society is so good at that we don't even remember differently.

Do you have any memory of being a child playing with other children ? About how the best games were when everyone played hard and there were no winners or losers, just kids playing ? Do you ever remember wanting to cry - or even crying - when another kind got hurt ? That's what I'm talking about, and so I believe are Frem and SignyM and HKC.

And the grownups response ? Don't cry - boys don't cry. What are you all doing - being silly ? Why don't you play a real game - let's sign you up for a sport. How are your grades ? If your friend can do it why can't you ? Compete, win, work, win, compete ,,, it's drilled into us. And if we don't there's something wrong with us and we'll never get by in life. How do you expect to get on in the real world ?

So I think we're taught that this is the Roman arena - the war of all against all.

And who benefits in the end ? Not the gladiators - not us.

I DO understand that SOME people have no capacity to care. And generally they tend to run other people mercilessly. So there needs to be some safeguard against them. And even the most empathic person when pushed will do terrible things. But in general, I think people would prefer to live in a society of trust, cooperation, security and freedom.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:08 PM

LEADB

I care!

I think we should treat each other honestly!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
My original statement was "Realize that if we do this (stand on our morals/ethics regardless)

I wasn't talking about "regardless"...

Quote:
... we must be willing to sacrifice some of our own if the means to save them goes beyond those 'hard and fast (moral) rules'. We might want to check with everybody first, to see which set of rules they're really willing to die for." Because regardless of whether you as an individual are willing to take responsibility for risking other people's lives to meet your moral guidelines, those other people might want to have a say in that decision as well - and they might have a different view of what morals/ethics are worth sacrificing themselves for

So are we willing to KILL to take the shortcut? Might we not want to consult with those people also ... say, the Iraqis... before we kill them? Or are those not "our own" less than human, or somehow not deserving of consideration?

Quote:
What I'm arguing for, I guess, is a realistic assessment of whether our methods are achieving the desired results, or are we just causing more problems?- Signy

You mean, is the application of the methods supported by the achievement of the desired results? Or, to put it another way, do the ends justify the means?- Geezer

Erm, Geezer, you got it completely bass-akwards. The question in your terminology, is Is the application of the methods achieving the desired result?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:16 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Rue,

I hope you are right about most people choosing a good society where freedom plays a starring role. They will have the opportunity to choose that in the near future, and again every four years after that.

I'm not sure I can agree about the games of my childhood. I don't remember many childhood games where there were no winners or losers.

I remember Duck, Duck, Goose, where you had to chase this guy who Goosed you. Not everyone caught up with him.

I remember Hide and Seek, where you had to hide and then were sought after. You exposed yourself at some point and made a run for the 'safe' zone. This was a game you could lose, as well.

I remember tag. I remember kickball.

I don't think competitive games are bad, though certainly we have the ability to turn them into hurtful things. I do remember that they were a lot of fun. Even more than coloring in a book by myself.

I also remember bullies and their cronies, who the rest of the kids failed to unite against. I remember that the Empathy for the victims seemed to shrink in comparison to Fear for their own well being.

And I remember when an entire classroom would unite and work together to ostracize one kid who was different. This was Cooperation of the wrong kind. I'm not sure where the Empathy was, at that moment. I saw this kind of injustice often enough to bother me, even as a child. The idea that the majority could unite to hurt a minority scared me long before I knew anything about discrimination or slavery or the Holocaust.

You might be right, Rue, about the power of good that resides in most people. I hope you are. But even as I hope, I also prepare. I make decisions based on my own life experience and the lessons I take from history. There were a very few truly good people in my youth, and a very few truly bad people. Everyone else did what was easiest or most rewarding at the moment. Empathy be damned.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I remember Duck, Duck, Goose, where you had to chase this guy who Goosed you. Not everyone caught up with him.
I remember Hide and Seek, where you had to hide and then were sought after. You exposed yourself at some point and made a run for the 'safe' zone. This was a game you could lose, as well.
I remember tag. I remember kickball."

But then you all played some more and no one went home a 'winner' or a 'loser'. That's one kind of play where playing is the object, not winning or losing. And I also remember racing kids down the sidewalk as fast as I could - but we had all decided the littler kids got a head start. The bigger kids weren't allowed to throw a ball hard enough to hurt anyone - if they did we all refused to play with them. We had our share of playtime disputes like who goes first (eennie meenie miney mo ...), but they got resolved equitably so that it was generally fair for everyone.

There are other types of play. I remember building a snow dam with all the other kids, waiting for the water to build up, knocking it open to watch the water rush out, then building it up again. I remember everyone bringing out their colored chalk (even the boys) and coloring the street with a path, and putting jokes and locations along the way. I remember a bunch of us building a dam across the creek with rocks just so we could watch the water rush over it. I remember tossing a ball with other kinds to see how high we could go without missing. Jumping rope to see how many times you could jump without missing. Swinging on swingsets and chanting nursery rhymes in unison. And so on.

These were all very physical games without any grand losers or winners. Just kids playing.

Your response to the bullying indicates you had empathy. And probably most other kids did as well. But the few that didn't have any got you all scared of being next. And that's what I mean about creating systems to deal with the few that are running the rest of us. When it comes to kids, there ARE ways to deal with bullying but it's not something kids generally think of, so it needs to be taught.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:01 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
On the other hand, I fully acknowledge there is a trade off between choices; but I tend to the 'those who would sacrifice liberty for security are likely to end up with neither' school of thought. I accept this influences the nature of the world; but that does not mean I accept responsibility for the actions of others.

'those who would sacrifice liberty for security are likely to end up with neither'

Is this an absolute? If we try to insure the security of airline passengers by sacrificing, say, the liberty of a person to carry explosives onto an airliner, do we lose all our liberty?

Franklin's original is not quite so black and white:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

Now we get to define "Essential Liberty", "a little Temporary Safety", and discuss the difference between "deserve" and "likely to end up".

We also have to wonder how old Ben's quote got distorted into such an absolute and un-debatable maxim.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:24 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I wasn't talking about "regardless"...

No. But I wasn't responding to you, but to AnthonyT's statement that..."there need to be hard and fast rules about what means are allowed towards which ends." This seems to indicate that such rules would be applied 'regardless' of consequence.

Quote:
Because regardless of whether you as an individual are willing to take responsibility for risking other people's lives to meet your moral guidelines, those other people might want to have a say in that decision as well - and they might have a different view of what morals/ethics are worth sacrificing themselves for. -Geezer-
So are we willing to KILL to take the shortcut?

Cool. So your decision to let folk get killed to support your morals is OK, but if they disagree, it's a shortcut? Not sure how this applies, since they have morals and make decisions based on them also. Do your morals supercede their's?

Quote:
Might we not want to consult with those people also ... say, the Iraqis... before we kill them? Or are those not "our own" less than human, or somehow not deserving of consideration?

Might you not want to consult with the person holding a knife to you child's throat to determine if they're more deserving of consideration than your child? Easy to come up with an emotionally-charged example, isn't it?

Quote:
What I'm arguing for, I guess, is a realistic assessment of whether our methods are achieving the desired results, or are we just causing more problems?- Signy

You mean, is the application of the methods supported by the achievement of the desired results? Or, to put it another way, do the ends justify the means?- Geezer

Erm, Geezer, you got it completely bass-akwards. The question in your terminology, is Is the application of the methods achieving the desired result?

Is the application of the methods supported (validated) by the achievement of the desired results? Is the application of the methods (validate by)achieving the desired result? Explain the difference between these two questions, please.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Dear Doug,

I assume you mean the "Essential Liberty" quote attributed to Franklin, which I wrote about a few years ago. You pose a good question. The quote appears at least three times in the book--on the title page, in the letter to the Governor, and restated as a philosophical position.

In the letter it's in the context of the colonists who did not support the Assembly's position on inhabitants of the frontier, families living two or three miles apart, who were subject to "Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers." Reading it today one might call it terrorist attacks.

There are some specifics given in the letter, comparing those colonists who do not try to defend themselves, those who try to make friends with the Indians by trading with them, and those who want weapons in order to defend themselves. It gets complicated, because there are issues of who exactly would do the defending. Keeping in mind the function of the letter as a political solicitation and the book in its entirety as propaganda, I don't rely on it as a historical account, though the title suggests that. Some reading between the lines is necessary.

You also have to read the accounts that precede the letter. The Governor blamed the Assembly for not giving him the powers to establish a Militia to defend the colony. That caused some colonists to demonize the Assembly. The Assembly apparently didn't have the funds to arm a Militia, or to trade with the Indians, and wanted Penn's heirs (in England) to ante up, since they were the beneficiaries of income from the colony. Meanwhile the Governor said that the French had armed the Delaware and Shawanese "under the Pretense of restoring them to their Country." So there was propaganda on that side of the story too. He also said that they had intelligence that "The Enemy had fallen upon settlements at a place called the Great Cove, and slaughtered or made Prisoners" of the inhabitants. The Assembly immediately passed a grant of Sixty Thousand Pounds to be struck in Bills of Credit and paid for by taxes on all the Estates (real and personal) in the Province for four years. The Governor rejected the bill and wouldn't sign it, saying he did not have the authority to tax the Proprietaries (i.e., the Penn family).

We have to keep in mind that the Indians who were said to be marauding had been displaced by the colonists Franklin was lobbying for. Plenty of modern parallels with that as well. The Governor then said that the Susquehanna Indians wanted guns to defend themselves with, and the colonists should immediately give them what they wanted or they would join with the French, not being able to defend themselves against a superior force.

There were all sorts of petitions coming in from the colonists to the Assembly--a page details them--including those who wanted the Assembly to stop petitioning the governor for money for armaments. There also were questions about whether the Governor's reports about the Indian invasion were exaggerated or false, and there are several pages about the treaty with Six Nations who were fighting for the English. The book suggests that the Governor was using the Indian terror scare to get the colonists alienated from the Assembly.

The Governor represented English authority, the Assembly represented the colonists. A lot of the "quote" is innuendo and implied meaning and is subject to interpretation. My take on it is that "Those who would..." refers to the colonists who believed the Governor and would protect them and that more powers should be given to the Governor, and thereby to the English authority, rather than retained by the Assembly.

After quoting the letter, the text of the book reads: There is not in any Volume, the sacred Writings excepted, a Passage to be found worth the Veneration of Freemen, than this, ' Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety;" nor could a Lesson of more Utility have been laid at that Crisis before the Pensylvanians. It really is remarkable how much of this story relates to today's world.

Best regards, Richard

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:48 PM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
'those who would sacrifice liberty for security are likely to end up with neither'

Is this an absolute? If we try to insure the security of airline passengers by sacrificing, say, the liberty of a person to carry explosives onto an airliner, do we lose all our liberty?

Franklin's original is not quite so black and white:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

Now we get to define "Essential Liberty", "a little Temporary Safety", and discuss the difference between "deserve" and "likely to end up".

We also have to wonder how old Ben's quote got distorted into such an absolute and un-debatable maxim.

Sigh. I should never quote from memory; I always blow it.

While I agree with the above, my primary point was that pointing blame at those other than the perpetrators is getting excessively close to

Quote:
Assigning responsibility else where walks into accepting the logic of 'It was her fault she was raped.'

The quote was merely to 'forwarn' folks of my bias, which I acknowledge and wished to state up front. I did not mean to state it as an absolute and thought I had conveyed that with the qualifier 'tend to'. I apologize if I confused you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
We also have to wonder how old Ben's quote got distorted into such an absolute and un-debatable maxim.

Oh, like A penny saved is a penney earned?. Or

A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over.

All would live long, but none would be old.

An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.

Anger is never without Reason, but seldom with a good One.

Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.

----------------------
In case you hadn't noticed, Ben Franklin was a master of the bon mot.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, now to more substantive issues...

Quote:
... we must be willing to sacrifice some of our own if the means to save them goes beyond those 'hard and fast (moral) rules'. We might want to check with everybody first, to see which set of rules they're really willing to die for." Because regardless of whether you as an individual are willing to take responsibility for risking other people's lives to meet your moral guidelines, those other people might want to have a say in that decision as well - and they might have a different view of what morals/ethics are worth sacrificing themselves for-Geezer

So are we willing to KILL to take the shortcut? Might we not want to consult with those people also ... say, the Iraqis... before we kill them? Or are those not "our own" less than human, or somehow not deserving of consideration?-Signy

Cool. So your decision to let folk get killed to support your morals is OK, but if they disagree, it's a shortcut? Not sure how this applies, since they have morals and make decisions based on them also. Do your morals supercede their's?

Wow, how can you miss the point so completely? In all of my posts, I haven't said anything about morals. I was talking about practicality- which I mentioned specifically. You're the one who keeps trying to turn it into a discussion about morals.

Quote:
Might we not want to consult with those people also ... say, the Iraqis... before we kill them? Or are those not "our own" less than human, or somehow not deserving of consideration? -Signy

Might you not want to consult with the person holding a knife to you child's throat to determine if they're more deserving of consideration than your child? Easy to come up with an emotionally-charged example, isn't it?- Geezer

I was just surprised by the prejudice leaking out from your post... the life-and-death distinction between "our own" and "others". Not my point, but it seemed strange and unintentionally revealing.

Quote:
Is the application of the methods supported (validated) by the achievement of the desired results? Is the application of the methods (validate by)achieving the desired result? Explain the difference between these two questions, please.

Sets and subsets.

Trying to move the discussion off the dime... Let's assume that we have (what we would consider to be) moral goals. Let's further assume that ALL options are on the table including genocide and nuclear Armageddon. Let's assume that the decision-maker assumes responsibility for the lives lost or saved on all sides, no matter which decision is made. My question is.... does there seem to be a historical principal at work that inconsistent means create inconsistent ends?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I can't think of any examples.

Which doesn't mean being a pansy. It just means that if you short-change your result by skimping on the work, you'll get a skimpy result.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thinking about Jared Diamond and Collapse. Island cultures that realized they were going to crash the island ecosystem. Their urgent goal was to preserve their islands to insure survival. To that end they either practiced abortion, infanticide, or sent their grown youngsters on a one way-voyage paddling out to the horizon. Pretty harsh stuff. I THINK it was a system without 'isms'. Not sure where this fits in, just musing.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:47 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Geezer,

What is your position?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:07 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In all of my posts, I haven't said anything about morals. I was talking about practicality- which I mentioned specifically. You're the one who keeps trying to turn it into a discussion about morals.

SignyM- "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.- Benjamin Franklin.
I guess the FF had it wrong then? Because they were willing to die for Liberty."

OK. Instead of morals, who about principles, such as Liberty?

Also, as noted, that quote was originally a response to ANTHONYB, not you.

Quote:
I was just surprised by the prejudice leaking out from your post... the life-and-death distinction between "our own" and "others". Not my point, but it seemed strange and unintentionally revealing.

I'm interested that you see no difference between protecting those you're responsible for and protecting those who would do them harm. It's not that some aren't deserving of consideration or less than human, (although in a lot of cases those which wish you harm feel that way about you) but that they are breaking the almost universal social contract which says you don't kill people just to take their stuff or make your god happy. Once they attempt that, as Mal said, "If someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back."

Of course, this opens a whole new can o' worms about who was the first to try and kill and take stuff, and if trys to KATS in the distant past allow a current response, and so on.

Quote:
My question is.... does there seem to be a historical principal at work that inconsistent means create inconsistent ends?

Depends.

Does it seem inconsistent that after spending time, blood, and treasure to keep your enemies from taking what's yours and prevailing, that you would then spend more time, blood and treasure giving your enemies what's yours for free? And in some cases preventing others from taking away what you'd given them?

That's a pretty good description of the post-WWII reconstruction of Japan and Germany. Worked pretty well.

On the other hand:

Does it seem inconsistent that in order to create a classless, stateless society you would need to have the government so involved in the minutia of the people's daily lives that 10% of the population is on the payroll of the secret police?

Welcome to the late East Germany.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:29 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Geezer,

What is your position?

--Anthony

I assume you mean on the maintaining my ethics/morals/principles vs. protecting others, and taking responsibility for those decisions.

I have my ethics/morals/principles. I also understand that my actions or decisions based on these e/m/p may have consequences to myself or others. In any given situation I try to balance the depth of my belief in the particular e/m/p that applies against the consequences of what that stand will cost. First, I'll see if there isn't a Plan B, which allows me to maintain my e/m/p and reduce the cost. If, after that, I consider that the cost is still too high I'll put my e/m/p aside for that one issue and do what I can to reduce the cost. If my e/m/p wins out, I take the action that my e/m/p dictates and stand responsible for the cost.

In relation to decisions based on my e/m/p, the words "never" and "always" will seldom come up.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.- Benjamin Franklin.-

I guess the FF had it wrong then? Because they were willing to die for Liberty.- Signy M

OK. Instead of morals, who about principles, such as Liberty?

I shouldn't have posted that because that wasn't my point. I was just poking at you for what seemed an inconsistent statement. (Inconsistent within your own set of principles.) But- not my position.

Quote:
I was just surprised by the prejudice leaking out from your post... the life-and-death distinction between "our own" and "others". Not my point, but it seemed strange and unintentionally revealing.-Signy

I'm interested that you see no difference between protecting those you're responsible for and protecting those who would do them harm.

That wasn't my point. To clarify: I was thinking about innocent "others": the people who simply want to live their lives who get caught in the middle of two opposing groups.

Quote:
Does it seem inconsistent that after spending time, blood, and treasure to keep your enemies from taking what's yours and prevailing, that you would then spend more time, blood and treasure giving your enemies what's yours for free?

I said nothing about giving stuff to enemies. That wasn't my point either.

Quote:
Does it seem inconsistent that in order to create a classless, stateless society you would need to have the government so involved in the minutia of the people's daily lives that 10% of the population is on the payroll of the secret police?

Who said anything about creating a classless society? That's not my point.

I don't know what argument you're arguing Geezer, but it isn't mine. You did your usual fine job of putting words in my mouth that weren't even there. Any time you want to discuss the point that I'm talking about, I'll be happy to respond further.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 7:08 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That wasn't my point. To clarify: I was thinking about innocent "others": the people who simply want to live their lives who get caught in the middle of two opposing groups.

Guess I need to clarify as well, I was talking, not about the innocent Iraqis, or innocent anybodies, but about non-innocents in general; killers for greed or god, if you will. They shouldn't, in my opinion, receive the same consideration as innocents I, you, or anyone are responsible for.

Quote:
Geezer - Does it seem inconsistent that after spending time, blood, and treasure to keep your enemies from taking what's yours and prevailing, that you would then spend more time, blood and treasure giving your enemies what's yours for free?
SignyM - I said nothing about giving stuff to enemies. That wasn't my point either.

You asked: " My question is.... does there seem to be a historical principal at work that inconsistent means create inconsistent ends?"

My response was "Depends"

I then provided an example of an instance in which an apparently inconsistent action - helping and defending your enemies - resulted in the desired positive outcome.

Quote:
Geezer - Does it seem inconsistent that in order to create a classless, stateless society you would need to have the government so involved in the minutia of the people's daily lives that 10% of the population is on the payroll of the secret police?
SignyM - Who said anything about creating a classless society? That's not my point.

I then provided an example of instance where an apparently inconsistent action - building a massive police state and a class of informers in order to achieve a classless, stateless society - didn't produce the desired outcome.

I could provide more examples of the fact that there is no Y/N answer to "...does there seem to be a historical principal at work that inconsistent means create inconsistent ends?", but these seem valid to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:02 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Thank you, Geezer.

I believe that most E.M.P's were created out of a need to protect others, and to create a better society overall. I believe that if you encounter situations where you must put your E.M.P.'s aside, then the logical thing to do is to change them, because clearly they were ill conceived.

Unfortunately, it is an easy matter to set EMPs aside when they are inconvenient to your goals. They can be easily sacrificed to achieve some immediate benefit while ignoring a long term cost. If you find yourself setting your EMPs aside 'just this once' or 'just for this one group' or 'just for a little while' or 'for them, though not for me and mine' then you are in fact admitting that your EMPs were valid, and that setting them aside is the invalid choice.

Otherwise you'd embrace a new set of amended EMPs applicable to everyone, and applicable all of the time.

I don't think Liberty and Human Rights are Ethics, Morals, or Principles that I will ever feel comfortable with discarding, because I would always want these principles to apply to me and mine. They are not flawed concepts that must be amended in the light of new data. Rather, they are inconvenient at the best of times, and essential at the worst of times.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:18 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Thank you, Geezer.

I believe that most E.M.P's were created out of a need to protect others, and to create a better society overall. I believe that if you encounter situations where you must put your E.M.P.'s aside, then the logical thing to do is to change them, because clearly they were ill conceived.
...
I don't think Liberty and Human Rights are Ethics, Morals, or Principles that I will ever feel comfortable with discarding, because I would always want these principles to apply to me and mine.

From earlier:

"In reality there is some abridgement to my liberties that I am willing to tolerate. I am willing to maintain laws that prevent people from driving 150 MPH on a road constructed for 50MPH travel...

I am willing to see enforcement of laws that say you can not discharge a firearm where the projectiles of that firearm are likely to penetrate your neighbor's property.

I am willing to submit to screening and security measures before boarding an airplane, because such measures, while inconvenient, help ensure everyone's safety.

These are all limitations on my liberties that I am willing to tolerate for the common good."

So your idea of Liberty and Human rights is full of exceptions from the absolute and caveats depending on their effect on the common good.

So are mine.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:23 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Geezer,

Absolutely. But I am willing to personally endure the consequences of such abridgements. I am willing to pay the fine for shooting into my neighbor's property and exceeding the structural limits of my roads.

The moment I am unwilling to do so, then I am no longer modifying my EMPs to bring them in synch with logic. Rather, I am admitting that the EMPs have value as-is (for me) but that I am willing to ignore their application (to others.)

Until I am prepared to be kidnapped and tortured, until I am prepared to authorize the kidnapping and torture of the people most precious to me, then I have no business 'temporarily' authorizing such acts upon other people because it is momentarily convenient.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 11:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hmm, okay Geezer, I see what you're saying.

But before I get to your specific points, I want to respond to your discussion with TonyT. You said:

Quote:
I have my ethics/ morals/ principles. I also understand that my actions or decisions based on these e/m/p may have consequences to myself or others. In any given situation I try to balance the depth of my belief in the particular e/m/p that applies against the consequences of what that stand will cost. .. If ... I consider that the cost is still too high I'll put my e/m/p aside for that one issue and do what I can to reduce the cost. If my e/m/p wins out, I take the action that my e/m/p dictates and stand responsible for the cost.

First of all, I don't think you truly put aside your e/m/p. I think that in these cases, some of your e/m/p conflict with OTHER e/m/p, and you are simply deciding which e/m/p take precedence. I think this is a great source of confusion for people, because they feel that the decision to potentially save lives through torture (for example) is not an ethical decision. It is. It merely means that you value saving lives over preventing pain. Those are your ethics, and there's nothing "wrong" with that.

Ethics are not about "being nice" or "being fair". Ethics are not necessarily charitable or forgiving. I'm not limiting my discussion to Mother Theresa -style of ethics.

Quote:
I then provided an example of an instance in which an apparently inconsistent action - helping and defending your enemies - resulted in the desired positive outcome.

The desire or goal of that action, as I understand it, was to remake Germany so that it would not rise up again in another generation to take over the Continent. Having taken a lesson from WWI reparations being a factor in WWII, the powers that be decided to help Germany rebuild. I don't see the goals or the means being inconsistent: this seems like a perfect example of the application of the correct means achieving the desired end.

Quote:
I then provided an example of instance where an apparently inconsistent action - building a massive police state and a class of informers in order to achieve a classless, stateless society - didn't produce the desired outcome.

In order to create a classless society, Marx(?) posited that the state needs to pass through a stage of "dictatorship of the proletariat" before the state "withers away". This was folly: a classic case of talking oneself into doing something against stated principles in order to achieved a "principled" end. So I think this is a good example of ends and means truly conflicting.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 1:24 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Until I am prepared to be kidnapped and tortured, until I am prepared to authorize the kidnapping and torture of the people most precious to me, then I have no business 'temporarily' authorizing such acts upon other people because it is momentarily convenient.

In my case, once again, I'd have to say 'it depends'.

If I, those precious to me, and the other people are all relatively innocent, then I'm fine with your approach. If the other people are those who would kill me for greed or their god, and I have to go beyond the things I'd be against doing to innocents, I'm thinking I'd have less of a problem.

Example: I think killing people is wrong. I wouldn't want to be killed and assume most people wouldn't. However, if someone tries to kill me, or those I'm responsible for, without what I consider a good reason, I will kill them if I think it necessary to defend me and mine.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 1:39 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, I don't think you truly put aside your e/m/p. I think that in these cases, some of your e/m/p conflict with OTHER e/m/p, and you are simply deciding which e/m/p take precedence.

Hey, we Reach! That's the decision that needs to be made. In your (editorial 'your') viewpoint as relates to that particular situation, which of your e/m/p trumps the other (or others).

Quote:
I think this is a great source of confusion for people, because they feel that the decision to potentially save lives through torture (for example) is not an ethical decision. It is. It merely means that you value saving lives over preventing pain. Those are your ethics, and there's nothing "wrong" with that.

Yet again! It's a Thanksgiving miracle! That's the question that arises in my mind when people say "I'll always come down on the side of X and Y". Because sometimes your action in a certain situation based on X will conflict with your action in the same situation based on Y. Either you compromise and decide, or you end up in a loop.

Quote:
Ethics are not about "being nice" or "being fair". Ethics are not necessarily charitable or forgiving. I'm not limiting my discussion to Mother Theresa-style of ethics.

I'd bet Momma Terri could make the hard choices pretty well, but I agree with your thought.

Happy Thanksgiving.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 2:35 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Geezer,

I would share your conviction of killing someone who was trying to deprive me of life and liberty.

Which is rather different than confiscating people without arrest, bugging them without warrant, searching them without permission, and torturing them for information.

Do you think there is a potential difference in the nature of these scenarios, or am I being unreasonable and arbitrary by seeing a difference between the two?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 3:49 PM