From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 8:06 PM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: evidence of god? for Holtz [G Riggs] "Elizabeth Hubbell" wrote: > doesn't the very fact > that life itself can reflect something "*organized*" after all point to > the conclusion that "inexorably increasing entropy" is not all there is? Temporary pockets of decreasing entropy can exist, but only at the price of increasing overall entropy. > Intellectual, familial, cultural, political, moral, social et al as well > as strictly physical? Sure, all these forms of autonomy are conducive to preservation of the relevant kinds of selves. > altruism [is] sometimes opposed to > short-term self-interest of self, yes, but not always opposed to > long-term self-interest of kind at all. Since this doesn't answer my question of *how* altruism can avoid conflicting with the self-interest that is so necessary for survival of self and kind, we may indeed have to agree to disagree here. > > 1) No finite sentence of incarceration is just punishment > > for first-degree murder. > > In your opinion. OK, tell us: what is the maximum finite period of incarceration that could ever be just punishment for first-degree murder? > If the incarcerated culprit becomes ethically unrelated to his younger > self, then surely that points to indefinite incarceration having been > effective in reforming the individual No, it just points to the individual having changed sufficiently. If I brutally kill you and then (somehow) honestly, sincerely, completely "reform" the next day, I deserve no punishment? Ludicrous. >--making indefinite incarceration a > more effective rehabilitative tool than [execution] I care about justice more than I care about "rehabilitation" -- which seems like nothing more than a code word justifying Orwellian preemptive punishment for future crimes not yet committed. > canceling what might have been positive > developments in later life. Is there some amount of "positive developments" that excuses murder? > a lifetime alone will more likely bring the individual to > a clearer understanding of right and wrong That understanding is neither my goal nor my responsibility. > the deliberate killing of any person who no longer > poses a direct threat to any other individual (due to incarceration or > whatever) remains a crime. In other words, you care more about punishing people for possible future crimes than for actual past crimes! That's frightening, especially for the people with no past crimes who you might come to believe will commit future crimes. > only those who still pose a direct threat to > individuals justify the expedient of outright slaughter. Am I to understand you would countenance a capital trial in which a death sentence was meted out for the crime of "posing a direct threat to individuals"? While I agree that threatening people is a crime, and that reckless endangerment can warrant life-threatening preventive action by police, it would have to be an *extreme* case of conspiracy to commit murder for a death sentence to be justified! > I would include your system of statist libertarianism. So, please, my > challenge/question still stands. Well, I would claim that my brand of libertarianism is indeed a "thoroughly fleshed-out exposition" and that it would "stem social unrest" by any reasonable measure. > I do count it unsuccessful if enough citizens are deprived of > basic necessities to the point where there is social unrest in the > streets. Sorry, but hypothetical possible "social unrest in the streets" is just too vague to be taken as a serious critique of a politico-economic system. > > "Deprivation" implies a depriver, and thus (illegal) aggression. > > Deprivation can also come about through pure neglect-- Again, "neglect" implies a positive duty being neglected. I've identified a positive duty to prevent death due to indigence. What *specific* duty are you talking about? What is the *most* inequality that you can imagine obtaining under a system you would consider just? > which violates the > preamble to the Constitution mandating that a nation "promote the > general Welfare". There is no such mandate. That phrase merely describes one of the goals that "we the people" had in ordaining and establishing the Constitution. > I don't believe anyone yet has tried a mixed economy in which there is > untrammelled entrepenurial freedom alongside the holding of a *portion* > of basic resources like energy, food, medicine, etc. in common for > specific humanitarian emergencies. You must be joking. To the extent that "untrammelled entrepenurial freedom" isn't in blatant and necessary contradiction with "holding a portion of basic resources [..] in common", this description could be applied to essentially any Western capitalist welfare state. > Half-assed attempts in that > direction may have been tried at one time or another, but never codified > as a basic coordinating principle of an entire sovereign nation. It takes a lot of nerve to call all these previous attempts "half-assed" and then toss off a hopelessly vague description of an alleged alternative. > > Can we guarantee that the indigent always have an alternative > > to death through starvation, exposure, or disease? Yes. > > Fantastic. How? One (suboptimal) way is how we do it here in America. A negative income tax could do it even better. > Fair question. I should refine my question and specify that I am > concentrating on instances of physical need/want/neglect In particular, I'd like to know *specifically* what you think people are entitled to above and beyond protection from mortal danger? I'd also *love* to know: what is your argument against someone who would advocate *more* entitlements for people than *you* advocate? > "Enlightened" suggests to me an > understanding or wisdom geared to the more specific goal of ensuring or > increasing the stability and/or happiness of a person or entire set of > persons. Then your statement that "enlightened long-term self-interest must always yield Good" is indeed a tautology. > > Because people who cooperate with each other can out-compete > > people who aggress against each other. > > Whence comes this understanding? It's probably because the benefits of positive externalities outweigh the opportunity costs of foregoing negative externalities. > > Intelligent sociality is indeed almost exclusive to mammals, > > but it is not common to all of them and seems to have > > developed independently in Carnivora, Pinnipedia, Proboscidea, > > and (especially) Cetecea and Hominoidea. > > Please, any idea as to how come it developed independently? It's probably because the benefits of positive externalities outweigh the opportunity costs of foregoing negative externalities. > those earliest pronouncements come from *trend-setting* theists, > not merely lock-step theists! Your fetish for originality still strikes me as bizarre and seems to bespeak a lack of confidence in your ability to recognize a non-original statement of a principle as nevertheless correct. > the belief contexts of the earliest pronouncements of those principles > that I first admired so in today's atheists may still point to theism > itself being an inherently beneficent urge I still say: it's shockingly naive to draw such dramatic conclusions from the (not-too-surprising) historical accident that the obvious theories of ethics were discovered in a milieu that was ignorant of evolution and thus devoid of robust atheism. > independent and pioneering altruists, IMHO, have a more > acute sense of things (at least, things related to the essence of human > feelings located between our ears) than most of us Your need to hero-worship ethicists is disturbing. I'll take the ethical judgements of any of thousands of modern ethics professors over those of your four ancients -- any day. We moderns see farther than the ancients, if only because we stand on their shoulders. > in these four cases, the altruists I'm concentrating on do not > appear to be adopting any set form of theism that is already in the air, > but, rather, developing entirely new theistic constructs of their own. I frankly don't care whether a principle is "entirely new" or not; I just care whether it's right. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net