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