[B5JMS] [OT] Sin

[b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: warlock at es.co.nz (Matthew Vincent)
Date: 2 May 2001 17:35:28 -0700
Lines: 161

On 2 May 2001 12:50:51 -0700, "Dr Nancy's Sweetie"
<kilroy at copland.rowan.edu> wrote:

>I see what you are getting at, but the word `sin' is usually taken to
>have religious connotations.  If you really don't intend such meanings,
>you should probably say that something is `unethical', or `immoral', or
>use some other word besides `sin'.

I was mirroring the language of the person I'd been having an ongoing
conversation with in the other thread; it was he who introduced the
word "sin". Since most religious people use the word "sin" as if it
were an objective standard of ethics, rather than merely an
unsubstantiated personal belief, there's no reason why their concepts
of "sin" should be held to a less than objective standard of proof. 

> 1) Who decides how sentient a being is? 

No-one *decides*, but rather it is *measured* based on the evidence
that a being can feel pain or other stimulation related to welfare
interests. This can be measured by physiological systems, behavioral
responses to aversive stimuli (such as prodding a cow in the backside
with a needle), and the capacity for social learning based on pain as
a primary punisher. Whilst empirical methods cannot always determine
the precise degree of sentience and sometimes we have to guess, the
theoretical model is nonetheless feasible. 

>(Are you going to say that clams are sentient on the same level as 
>humans, and that eating clam chowder is participating in murder?)

Not at all; AFAIK clams have far less sentience than humans. 

> 2) Who decides what `harm' is? 

Again, no-one decides; it is measured. Ethics are something which
humans only *measure*, like the temperature. 

>How do you balance cases where there is
>some harm going to happen, and you have to decide who it happens to?

You go for the lesser degree of harm. It is usually wrong to cause
*any* harm, but this only applies relative to the (usually available)
alternative of causing no harm at all. It would be a false
alternatives fallacy to claim that causing any harm is always wrong,
because sometimes there is no option and you need to go with the
smallest degree of harm possible. 

>    Should the Vorlons have zorched Deathwalker?  She was sentient.  They
>    may have minimized the harm that would have resulted long-term, but
>    they certainly didn't minimise harm to *her*.

Yeah, because other beings have a similar degree of welfare interests
/ sentience as she does, and you have to be impartial wrt whose harm
matters the most. We need to take the lesser degree of overall harm. 

>Do we keep up the War on Drugs, or not?  Drugs harm people, but it's
>not clear present policy is much better.  Are we minimizing harm here, or not?

That's a good empirical question. The role of the law should be to
prevent harm to others; harm to the self is a subjective, personal
choice that the individual (rather than the law) is the better judge
of in most cases. The only justification for drugs being illegal is
that sometimes a habitual drug user can behave violently or otherwise
antisocially towards others. Considering that the worst case of this
is how alcoholics treat their children, it is rather hypocritical for
alcohol to be legal and most other drugs not; most drugs can be used
safely in moderation, just like alcohol can. 

This is largely a matter of social acceptance; cannabis, for instance,
was made illegal due to racism against blacks. If drug use is going to
be restricted at all, perhaps it should best be restricted to parlors
where patrons consume the drugs, and then remain there until the
effects wear off. The only exceptions would be drugs that have risks
of side-effects from even controlled short-term usage. 

>    Should we let Jack Kevorkian out of jail so he can give people fatal
>    doses of medicine?  Killing people is harming them; but is letting
>    them live in pain any better? 

Remind me - was it exclusively *voluntary* euthanasia? If so, then
this is acceptable as long as the patient BOTH consents to the
procedure; AND the decision seems to be rational based on the
consequences for the patient. That is, someone with a painful terminal
illness could be considered to be making a rational choice to die;
whereas a suicidally depressed but physically healthy youth could not.


>How about the death penalty? 

The death penalty actually *increases* the rate of violent crime; for
instance, death penalty states in the US have about twice the murder
rate of other states, and the crime rate typically increases
immediately following a public execution. This is probably because the
execution encourages dehumanisation and further violence. 

Also, it costs over $2 million more to execute someone than it does
for life imprisonment, because lengthy court procedures are necessary
to ensure the person's guilt. Even doing this, quite a few innocent
people are still put on death row and sometimes executed. Overall,
imprisonment is the better option from providing a deterrent and
protecting society; retributive violence against criminals merely
encourages more violence from other criminals. 

>Lots of people get very messed up by alcohol; was Prohibition a good idea or not?

The public didn't accept prohibition of alcohol, so it isn't feasible.
The law can only intervene to *guide* the public's behavior, rather
than enforcing it. 

>Some people claim that certain sexual activities are harmful.  Is it
>immoral to ban such activities?

It is if there is no basis for the sexual activities being considered
harmful. If it is consenting adults expressing their own subjective
preferences in private, there is no harm being caused. Even if
(hypothetically) one argues that emotional harm is being caused, harm
to the self is still a personal choice for consenting adults; the
individuals involved are in a better position to be the judge of this
than the law is. The law should only prevent harm to others. 

> 3) How much harm is okay?  Suppose a parent allows a child to do
>    something, knowing the child will get bonked (but not injured) and
>    cry.  Many parents take the view that kids have to learn some things
>    themselves, and interfering in *every* situation will cause more
>    harm over the long term.  But their actions definitely don't minimize
>    harm in the short term.

There is no reason to preference harm in the short-term; the only
issue is over the empirical claim that there is benefit from the
short-term harm. It is sometimes possible to teach these lessons
without any harm being caused in the short-term either. 

>Many of our elected legislators are trying to minimize harm, and end up arguing
>at length over what harms need to be minimized and which courses of action
>will actually produce the desired results.

These are valid empirical questions which don't always have obvious
answers; however, this doesn't dispute the theory itself. The fact
that we don't know the temperature at the centre of the sun does not
make the process of measuring temperature invalid. 

>Even if morality can be summed up so simply *in theory*, if that theory
>can't help us make good decisions *in practice*, then it's just useless.

Yeah, but it's helpful in many situations, and there is no better
alternative for the situations in which we can't measure harm well. 

>It is generally taken that an almighty Creator, if he exists, is in a
>position to know many things we do not know, and thus give us guidance to
>making good decisions. 

But how do we know what this guidance is? Many of the religions,
cultures and bibles around the world make contradictory claims on
this; the bibles are often self-contradictory even; and claims from
them often run counter to humanitarian values. How do we know the
truth from all this jumbled mess? Isn't it easier to measure ethics
from consequences to welfare than from something as obscure as trying
to ascertain God's word from scant evidence? 

Matthew 



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 3 May 2001 07:41:59 -0700
Lines: 16

>> 1) Who decides how sentient a being is? 

"It is a given that Man is the noblest of all god's creatures.  But you have to
ask, who discoverd that?" -- Mark Twain


 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)