Justified action
-
I hope no one considers this soapbox material, as I intend it to be a purely philosophical question... While I was responding to a post from David Wulff in the Soapbox (in the 'Temper' thread), I started mulling over how an action can or should be justified. I've asked it numerous times of numerous people, and it always starts a war of words in which someone almost always ends up contradicting themselves during the argument. So, of course, I want to know what the intelligent and feisty minds of CP think ;) So... which is it? How is an action justified? Because of the effect people think it will have? Or because the action is justifiable unto itself? Can an action only be justified after taking it and then figuring out what happenned (ie after the fact)? Personally, I've been from the Rand end of the spectrum all the way over to the completely utilitarian, and I'm still not quite sure which is right. What do you guys think? -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
An action is justified if it does not lower the person who pursues it to a level they do not want, and if the repercussions of the action cause no more harm to all affected by it than they deserve or than they will recieve if the opposite course of action is taken. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
-
I hope no one considers this soapbox material, as I intend it to be a purely philosophical question... While I was responding to a post from David Wulff in the Soapbox (in the 'Temper' thread), I started mulling over how an action can or should be justified. I've asked it numerous times of numerous people, and it always starts a war of words in which someone almost always ends up contradicting themselves during the argument. So, of course, I want to know what the intelligent and feisty minds of CP think ;) So... which is it? How is an action justified? Because of the effect people think it will have? Or because the action is justifiable unto itself? Can an action only be justified after taking it and then figuring out what happenned (ie after the fact)? Personally, I've been from the Rand end of the spectrum all the way over to the completely utilitarian, and I'm still not quite sure which is right. What do you guys think? -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
Since it's impossible to predict the future correctly in a situation without the action occuring, you therefore cannot justify any action on that basis. Instead of prooving a hypothesis is right you should concentrate on proving that its false abilities are implausable. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
justified[^] but, personally i think it comes down to this: an action is justified when the people who's opinions matter to you are more likely to agree than to disgree with it. the tricky part is: who's opinions matter to you? if it's just you and your delusions, almost anything is possible. -c
As always, it's bread and circuses. And while bread is down right now, circuses are way up.
Chris Losinger wrote: the tricky part is: who's opinions matter to you? if it's just you and your delusions, almost anything is possible. Chris, It could be viewed that "you and your delusions" will always represent everything and everyone (to you), then were all screwed, right? :~ Nick Parker
If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon, and explode once a year killing everyone inside. -Robert Cringely
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the tricky part is: who's opinions matter to you? if it's just you and your delusions, almost anything is possible. Chris, It could be viewed that "you and your delusions" will always represent everything and everyone (to you), then were all screwed, right? :~ Nick Parker
If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon, and explode once a year killing everyone inside. -Robert Cringely
-
An action is justified if it does not lower the person who pursues it to a level they do not want, and if the repercussions of the action cause no more harm to all affected by it than they deserve or than they will recieve if the opposite course of action is taken. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: and if the repercussions of the action cause no more harm to all affected by it than they deserve or than they will recieve if the opposite course of action is taken. This reminds me of a example we had in a philosophy course I took a few years ago. The story is simple (and in short). You wake up one morning physically attached to a famous violinst. Your soul purpose is to be attached to this violinst for the next 9 month (twist off an abortion debate) because he needs to use your body to clean his blood otherwise he will die. The question was are you obligated to continue for the next 9 months living with this man attached to you only for the life of someone you don't even know to be saved. Nick Parker
If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon, and explode once a year killing everyone inside. -Robert Cringely
-
Chris Losinger wrote: welcome to my world. and mine... delusions are somewhat of a circular reference huh? :) Nick Parker
If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon, and explode once a year killing everyone inside. -Robert Cringely
-
Christian Graus wrote: and if the repercussions of the action cause no more harm to all affected by it than they deserve or than they will recieve if the opposite course of action is taken. This reminds me of a example we had in a philosophy course I took a few years ago. The story is simple (and in short). You wake up one morning physically attached to a famous violinst. Your soul purpose is to be attached to this violinst for the next 9 month (twist off an abortion debate) because he needs to use your body to clean his blood otherwise he will die. The question was are you obligated to continue for the next 9 months living with this man attached to you only for the life of someone you don't even know to be saved. Nick Parker
If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon, and explode once a year killing everyone inside. -Robert Cringely
Yeah - that's not wierd.... :P Am I obliged ? Not if I didn't know what was going to happen before it did. Does that mean I wouldn't do it ? Depends on if he'd agree not play his damn violin for 9 months.... Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
-
Since it's impossible to predict the future correctly in a situation without the action occuring, you therefore cannot justify any action on that basis. Instead of prooving a hypothesis is right you should concentrate on proving that its false abilities are implausable. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin^Davies wrote: Since it's impossible to predict the future correctly in a situation without the action occuring, you therefore cannot justify any action on that basis. tell that to GWB. :) sorry. couldn't help myself.
As always, it's bread and circuses. And while bread is down right now, circuses are way up.
-
I hope no one considers this soapbox material, as I intend it to be a purely philosophical question... While I was responding to a post from David Wulff in the Soapbox (in the 'Temper' thread), I started mulling over how an action can or should be justified. I've asked it numerous times of numerous people, and it always starts a war of words in which someone almost always ends up contradicting themselves during the argument. So, of course, I want to know what the intelligent and feisty minds of CP think ;) So... which is it? How is an action justified? Because of the effect people think it will have? Or because the action is justifiable unto itself? Can an action only be justified after taking it and then figuring out what happenned (ie after the fact)? Personally, I've been from the Rand end of the spectrum all the way over to the completely utilitarian, and I'm still not quite sure which is right. What do you guys think? -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
Most actions can be justified if you are not putting yourself ahead while knowingly hurting someone else. My 2 cents... The following statement about your geekness is true. The previous statement about your geekness is false. GCS/IT/P d- s: a- C++++$ UL+>++++ P+ L++$ E- W+++$ N !o K+ w++$ O---- M-- PS- PE Y+ PGP--- t !5 X- tv b+++ DI++ D+ G++ e++ h--- r+++
-
I hope no one considers this soapbox material, as I intend it to be a purely philosophical question... While I was responding to a post from David Wulff in the Soapbox (in the 'Temper' thread), I started mulling over how an action can or should be justified. I've asked it numerous times of numerous people, and it always starts a war of words in which someone almost always ends up contradicting themselves during the argument. So, of course, I want to know what the intelligent and feisty minds of CP think ;) So... which is it? How is an action justified? Because of the effect people think it will have? Or because the action is justifiable unto itself? Can an action only be justified after taking it and then figuring out what happenned (ie after the fact)? Personally, I've been from the Rand end of the spectrum all the way over to the completely utilitarian, and I'm still not quite sure which is right. What do you guys think? -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
A very interesting question, Russell... An action is justified if it is consistent with the set of values you have consciously chosen as a foundation for your life, and if the situation calls more strongly for action than inaction. Often the best course is to do nothing, though few people realize that. Most often, though, there is no conscious choice of values, and people are therefore bewildered by their own actions, frustrated by situations that they cannot resolve morally, and dependent upon the opinions of others for jsutification. The vast majority of people never experience the culling process of weeding out the beliefs and ethical values they have grown attached to by association with their parents and peers, which usually contain many internal conflicts. Only by consciously reviewing and either deliberately choosing or rejecting the ideas one has taken for granted can one acquire a consistent set of values by which to justify future actions. Old malted hops and yeasts never die, they just slowly stupify...
-
Yeah - that's not wierd.... :P Am I obliged ? Not if I didn't know what was going to happen before it did. Does that mean I wouldn't do it ? Depends on if he'd agree not play his damn violin for 9 months.... Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: Yeah - that's not wierd.... Tell me about it, it was also a required course as well. :confused: Christian Graus wrote: Not if I didn't know what was going to happen before it did. Kinda hard for a baby to know what to expect before you do huh, guess that's why we are guys; the baby doesn't grow in our stomach. ;) But your comment does raise questions about abortion, BTW how is this considered down-under? It is legal here (i.e. - abortion). Nick Parker
If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon, and explode once a year killing everyone inside. -Robert Cringely
-
Christian Graus wrote: Yeah - that's not wierd.... Tell me about it, it was also a required course as well. :confused: Christian Graus wrote: Not if I didn't know what was going to happen before it did. Kinda hard for a baby to know what to expect before you do huh, guess that's why we are guys; the baby doesn't grow in our stomach. ;) But your comment does raise questions about abortion, BTW how is this considered down-under? It is legal here (i.e. - abortion). Nick Parker
If the automobile had followed the same development as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon, and explode once a year killing everyone inside. -Robert Cringely
Abortion is legal, but sometimes hard to get hold of, at least that's what the lezbo feminists tell me. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002