X-Message-Number: 10148
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:56:00 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #10140 - #10147

Hi everyone!

To Bob I will say: OK, tell me when you finish your book and I'll read
it. It IS hard to discuss these matters briefly. Not only that, but
I think the foundations of our common morality need a great deal of
scrutiny --- they may be inappropriate given what we know now about
how people work.

To Paul, I believe there is now a serious problem with "happiness"
as an aim. Moreover, your analysis gets convoluted if you think
about real cases. Just what responsibility would someone have if
every known indication of someone's mental and emotional condition
suggested that they suffered from depression, they cure this person
of depression using known drugs, and THEN the person sues them for
acting against what they wanted? I know that the universe punishes
honest careful mistakes just as much as it punishes dishonest or
careless mistakes, but do we want a morality which does that.

As for using the causes of someone's action to judge it rather than
its results (which can in real personal affairs very rarely be 
worked out in advance) this would have several consequences. There
would be no notion of blame. It does NOT mean that we would not
(sometimes) act rationally: that too can be a cause of our actions.
It would "medicalize" all of criminal law (which someday may even
happen, since people do commit crimes due to some kinds of derangement.
Since the judges themselves also have causes for their decisions,
a consistent system of this kind would also make sure THOSE causes
were appropriate (rational?) rather than (say) the desire to get
someone out of the way so the judge can appropriate their wealth.
There would be treatment rather than punishment.

One major problem with your idea of responsibility is simply that
responsibility, first, is often hard to assign, and second, we both
know that in real life lots of people escape without responsibility
for their actions.

Finally, about happiness: the first thing I'd say here is that
it's one of those "nothing" words we use to believe we understand.
Just what makes A happy differs from what makes B happy, and that
difference may be profound. We cover all this up as if we are 
explaining it by saying that each wants happiness. Not only that,
but as I mentioned simple "happiness" suffers from severe faults
for just that reason. Sometimes we want to be unhappy, and our
desire is rational. And I gave the instance comparing a cat with
a human being quite deliberately. Knowledge and happiness can 
and often are in conflict. And I'm NOT talking about giving up one's
life for one's children, say --- but something much deeper.

			Best and long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10148