Hank.Walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU (08/05/86)
--------------- Return-Path: <dmw@unh.cs.cmu.edu> Date: Tuesday, 29 July 1986 23:49:11 EDT From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu To: hoffman.es@xerox.com Subject: proprosed privacy amendment What are "others?" Is a person a human being, a mammal, an animal, a vertebrate, plant, or what? Can you screw your dog under this amendment? How about torture your cat? What is "a clear and present danger?" Is smoking in front of your kids a clear and present danger since they are much more likely to get sick? What about whipping your kids hard enough to scar them, but not kill them? Is that a clear and present danger? If you screw your dog at night in the living room with the lights on and curtains open, is this private, assuming screwing your dog is allowed with the curtains closed? (The Supreme Court has ruled that you would have no exceptation of privacy if you can be easily seen from the street, a plane, etc). What about incest? Is the possibility of a deformed child a clear and present danger? What if the female's on the pill? This proposed amendment seems so vague that it could be stretched to conflict with many existing widely-accepted laws, such as cruelty to animals or child abuse. I think to be useful, the privacy must fit in with the rest of the bill of rights and the existing set of widely-accepted laws. -------
hoffman.es@XEROX.COM (08/05/86)
From: Hank.Walker
What are "others?" Is a person a human being,
a mammal, an animal, a vertebrate, plant, or what?
Can you screw your dog under this amendment? How
about torture your cat?... What about whipping
your kids ....?
I said originally that our thoughts about [terms like "person"] are
evolving and improving over time. Here's a quote I like (it's been
lightly edited):
From Richard Rorty's book, "Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature":
Personhood is a matter of decision rather than knowledge, an
acceptance of another being into fellowship rather than a
recognition of a common essence.
Knowledge of what pain is like or what red is like is attributed
to beings on the basis of their potential membership in the
community. Thus babies and the more attractive sorts of animal are
credited with "having feelings" rather than (like machines or
spiders) "merely responding to stimuli." To say that babies know
what heat is like, but not what the motion of molecules is like is
just to say that we can fairly readily imagine them opening their
mouths and remarking on the former, but not the latter. To say that
a gadget that says "red" appropriately *doesn't* know what red is
like is to say that we cannot readily imagine continuing a
conversation with the gadget.
Attribution of pre-linguistic awareness is merely a courtesy
extended to potential or imagined fellow-speakers of our language.
Moral prohibitions against hurting babies and the better looking
sorts of animals are not based on their possessions of feeling. It
is, if anything, the other way around. Rationality about denying
civil rights to morons or fetuses or robots or aliens or blacks or
gays or trees is a myth. The emotions we have toward borderline
cases depend on the liveliness of our imagination, and conversely.
Now torture is a clear and present danger to the "other".
Non-consensual violence, including sexual violence, is also. Are
animals "others"? I'd say so personally, but I'm content to let
"society" struggle with the evolving definition of that term.
From: Hank.Walker
This proposed amendment seems so vague that it could
be stretched to conflict with many existing widely-
accepted laws, such as cruelty to animals or child abuse.
Huh? How does it conflict? If anything, it strengthens such laws.
From: Hank.Walker
I think to be useful, the privacy must fit in with the
rest of the bill of rights and the existing set of
widely-accepted laws.
Of course. I proposed it as an AMENDMENT, not as an entire complete
constitution.
-- Rodney Hoffman
-------