Re: The Nature of Man

On Nov 17, 2012 4:47 PM, "Jeffrey S. Owens" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge. So all good is due to
> > sufficient knowledge. This is the principle of optimism. This means
> > that for every evil act, had the evildoer known that his act was evil,
> > and that there was a good option available to him, he would have done
> > good instead of evil. To explain this principle, I'll consider a few
> > hypothetical situations.
> >
> > The first situation involves a parent giving her baby a bottle of
> > formula. The baby takes a sip and puts the bottle down on his tray.
> > Then the parent tried to coax the baby with cute eating methods
> > involving airplane sounds. The baby kept turning his head. Then the
> > parent got anxious and tried to force it in his mouth thinking that
> > she's doing it in the best interest of her baby. The baby responded by
> > hitting the bottle, knocking it to the floor. Then the parent used
> > more force and succeeded in getting her baby to drink the formula.
> > Hours later, the baby died. The autopsy showed that the baby was
> > poisoned. The police learned that the formula was tainted -- not just
> > the formula in the baby's bottle, but also the whole batch of formula
> > shipped by the manufacturer.
> >
> > It’s important to consider who committed evil; the parent, the baby,
> > or both. The baby knew that the formula tasted really bad, so each
> > time that he rejected it, he was doing good. The parent knew that her
> > baby rejected the formula, so each time that she tried to coerce her
> > baby to drink it, she was committing evil.
> >
> > Now consider a situation identical in all respects but one -- the
> > formula wasn’t tainted, so the baby didn't die. Who acted immorally?
> > Can the answer be different? Logically, the answer cannot be
> > different. Morality does not depend on the actual results, but rather
> > only the expected results. To illustrate this point, consider whether
> > or not it is moral for a father of five young children to choose to
> > spend all their wealth on lottery tickets. Does the moral choice
> > depend on whether or not he wins? No, the moral choice depends on
> > whether or not he’s expected to win.
> >
> > As I’ve illustrated, every evil act is caused by insufficient
> > knowledge. In the case of the parent who forced her baby to drink the
> > bottle, had she known that coercing people is expected to lead to bad
> > results, and that persuasion doesn't have that fault, she would not
> > have resorted to coercion. In the case of the father who spent his
> > entire life savings on lottery tickets, had he known that his choice
> > is expected to lead to bad results, and that he had a better way to
> > spend the wealth, he would not have committed evil.
> >
> > At some point in the future, when every human being understands this
> > principle of optimism well, and has sufficient knowledge, all evils
> > will be eradicated.
> >
> >
> > Criticisms? Questions?
>
> Seems that evil is typically defined in terms of human suffering or death.
>  I think that is a reasonable assumption to work from. I'd like to offer up
> another practical example:  technology transfer policy.  To put it simply,
> for the sake of brevity, the general policy orientation is for developed
> nations to limit technology transfer to developing ones.

That is anti-freedom -- anti-capitalism. Its coercion. Coercion is
expected to lead to bad results. Hence evil. Yes, it causes human
suffering.


> The rationale for
> this is many technologies can be used for military purposes (ex. nuclear
> power, encryption algorithms, etc.), as well as population growth (water
> infrastructure for farming, and so forth) and those are considered to be
> threats.

Why are they threats?


> In the case of technologies that can save lives (thereby increasing
> population numbers) a good case can be made that keeping technology from
> developing nations is evil. So to put this example in terms of your
> question,  If policy makers had sufficient knowledge of handling population
> growth and military threats would they be likely to opt for transferring
> technology?

They would go further than that. They would not even consider the idea
of forcing companies from selling their products to certain potential
customers.

-- Rami


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/