rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/12/84)
>>Ah, the bugaboo of utilitarianism! Easily routed: "evil" is subjective. >>It is whatever is perceived to be disutile to the observer. That's why what >>is evil to one may be good to another. More abstract ideas of evil take into >>account net utility: if A harms one more than it benefits another, then A is >>evil. [HUYBENSZ] > What on earth is "disutile"? By your definition, evil is not subjective, > anyway, just relativistic. Once again you have attempted to define evil > out of the system. Well, suppose I am an agnostic in Nazi Germany, in a > position to prevent Hitler's rise to power. How do I justify stopping him? > By your argument, my stopping him would be "disutile" to him (assuming I > understand the intent of the word), and thus evil. Are we going to > maximize utility? And by what formula? WHOSE formula? As I understand > your formulation, Hitler was MORALLY JUSTIFIED in doing what he did. As > I understand evil, your utilitarianist definition justifies any actions. > One cannot even judge one's own actions. Unless you intend to define away > these problems, my intuition about evil tells me that your utility theory > of evil is just flat out wrong. You justify stopping him by saying that his actions are dangerous to humankind (or large elements of it). Since the conception of evil is indeed subjective (something I think I've described but which some people who prefer absolute good/evil prefer to ignore), what is dangerous to the human race as a whole can be judged as wrong. Again, as I've said, what harms ANY human being is going to be considered "evil" by that person. If we value humanity, if we seek some longterm satisfaction out of life instead of short-term, often malevolent, gratification of needs, then we are smart enough to know that that which would harm people maliciously is potentially harmful to us and to humanity at large. > So now we are faced with modelling a human mind assisted by a computer. > We thus have the same problems. When this research generates any real > results, I will believe in it. People believe in physics because of its > impressive string of successes; since psychology has no such record, I > choose not to believe in it. Funny. Research into "souls" or "gods" haven't generated any "real results"... >>You are here making the assumption that Diety exists, which is not part of >>the assumptions of science. Science is agnostic about Diety. > Science assumes that Deity can be ignored. I am not assuming, I am stating > it exists. If you choose deny my statement, assumption or not, then I > assume that you are saying that if a deity exists, it can be understood > through the processes of science. I find this notion absurd. I find YOUR notion absurd. If god exists, it is PART of the nature, the schema, the composition of the universe. (Again, and hopefully for the last time: DEFINE UNIVERSE!!! so we can decide what you mean by god and supernatural!!!!!) What's absurd about your notion is the wishful thinking aspect of it: you believe in a deity that is OUTSIDE the universe, because that's the type of deity needed to coalesce your beliefs. When that very notion is a logical contradiction. -- "Send the recording back into the medium." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr