[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[David L. Willson]

On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 22:59 -0600, Michael Fierro wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 06:35:07PM -0600, David L. Willson wrote:
> 
> > People are born gay, brown-haired, alcoholic, skinny, lazy, short,
> > crazy, and easy-going.  Being born with a predisposition toward a
> > behavior or attitude does not define it as healthy.
> 
> It does not define it as unhealthy, either.

Of course not, and I would never imply such a thing.

> > are logically provable,  and yet the majority of people will
> > emphatically deny, to preserve their self-interest.  Watch where the
> 
> Yeah... like the fact that those politicians who scream the loudest about
> "family values" tend to be outed as gay, or seeking out prostitutes...
> 
> Now interestingly enough, I would have no problem with any given public
> official being gay or having an affair or soliciting a prostitute. I think
> that sex is an extremely personal and private activity. However, when someone
> makes a career out of saying how evil such a practice is, then gets caught
> doing something similar...
> 
> But I digress.

rather.  :-)

> > The overall affect of the behavior on the survivability of the
> > individual and the community determine right/good/healthy.
> 
> I think that you might find that plenty would argue that this is too
> simplistic. It's another one of those black and white things.
> 
> To use one example: suppose you are trapped in a submarine with three other
> people. There isn't enough air left for all four of you to last until a
> rescue boat gets there. However, there's probably enough air if only three
> people are breathing. And there's definitely enough if only two people are
> breathing. By your definition, murdering two people in this situation would
> be healthy, since it would ensure the survivability of both an individual and
> part of the community.

It's not either too simplistic.  It is the rational foundation of a
useful system of ethics which is effective across diverse populations
because of it's objectivity.  And your example is great, but your
conclusion is flawed.  Because there is a chance of saving 3, and a
certainty saving two, the chance of saving three only needs to be higher
than 67% before attempting to save three is more ethical than attempting
to save two.  The three smallest should kill the biggest one, since he
is likely to use the most oxygen.

OK, that last sentence was a joke.  What chance do those little guys
have, really?

OK, that was a joke, too, but my sister ~was~ once bitten by a moose.

And seriously, just in case we're ever in an emergency together, women
and children first, if anyone has to "be the hero" it'll be me, because
I want off this rock anyway, and it gives you more time to think about
things.  :-)  John Harper is one of my heroes.