3 ms·

unless you can show with substantive research that there are some ideas that cannot be held by violent terrorists I don't see why that would color these particu

unless you can show with substantive research that there are some ideas that cannot be held by violent terrorists I don't see why that would color these particular ideas.

bmitc 3y ago
People are human and not logical, purely rational (whatever that would mean), data machines. We're emotional. I can certainly understand the perspective when the above commenter has seen the pain and suffering that those ideas, threaded amplified through either mental illness and/or pathological personality, led to. Okay, maybe Kaczynski had some points that resonate and concur with other more respected scholars and critics, but it is quite difficult to dissociate his ideas from his actions, especially when one can easily find others who did not violently kill and maim others with the same ideas. The substantive research is all of human psychology, biology, and sociology.
- mdp2021 3y ago
  > human Those things endowed with the capability of effortful judgement, abstracting from more "primitive" (biologically ancestral) instances.
MollyRealized 3y ago
I'd argue that these ideas cannot be held by violent terrorists: * Commitment to avoid causing physical or emotional harm to others. * Absolute respect and preservation of all human lives, without exceptions. * Unconditional rejection of violence under any circumstances. * Belief that every human has the right to live, and recognition of the dignity, worth, and autonomy of every individual. * Full acceptance of differing viewpoints, cultures, religions, and lifestyles. * Consistent practice of understanding and sharing the feelings of others, and alleviating their suffering. * Refraining from initiating force against others. * Resolution of differences and conflict through conversation and mutual understanding, rather than force or coercion.
- gonehome 3y ago
  Most people hold wildly inconsistent views in their head all the time, despite obvious contradictions - it’s the default human behavior. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZWvGhhFJ7dY/belief-in-belief https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZWvGhhFJ7dY/belief-in-...
- tbrownaw 3y ago
  How would someone with those beliefs handle the trolley problem?
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
It's not their ideas, exactly. It's their moral judgment. See, the unabomber manifesto was essentially a moral argument. "These things cause damage" is a moral observation. (Because how are you going to define "damage" without moral judgment?) "Therefore we should destroy technology" is a moral judgment (because you can't get there without the moral judgment of "humans should not be damaged"). So, the point is, I'm not going to trust the moral judgment of a murderer. Every fact he says in the manifesto may be correct. But his moral judgment is self-evidently terrible. And he reaches his conclusions through that moral judgment.
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
The other angle is future deterrence. If a society collectively shuns ideals from violent terrorists, they will have less incentive to be violent.
watwut 3y ago
That still does not imply we should listen to people like Kaczynsky or take his ideas seriously. He sux and should not matter. If someone else with better decisions making recond expresses same ideas in another context, we can listen to him. The only thing that distinguishes Kaczynsky from, well, any random dude, are the bombs. Otherwise he is a no one. And random dude that did not send bombs makes more sense to listen to.

unless you can show with substantive research that there are some ideas that cannot be held by violent terrorists I don't see why that would color these particular ideas.

bmitc 3y ago

People are human and not logical, purely rational (whatever that would mean), data machines. We're emotional. I can certainly understand the perspective when the above commenter has seen the pain and suffering that those ideas, threaded amplified through either mental illness and/or pathological personality, led to. Okay, maybe Kaczynski had some points that resonate and concur with other more respected scholars and critics, but it is quite difficult to dissociate his ideas from his actions, especially when one can easily find others who did not violently kill and maim others with the same ideas. The substantive research is all of human psychology, biology, and sociology.

mdp2021 3y ago
> human Those things endowed with the capability of effortful judgement, abstracting from more "primitive" (biologically ancestral) instances.

MollyRealized 3y ago

I'd argue that these ideas cannot be held by violent terrorists: * Commitment to avoid causing physical or emotional harm to others. * Absolute respect and preservation of all human lives, without exceptions. * Unconditional rejection of violence under any circumstances. * Belief that every human has the right to live, and recognition of the dignity, worth, and autonomy of every individual. * Full acceptance of differing viewpoints, cultures, religions, and lifestyles. * Consistent practice of understanding and sharing the feelings of others, and alleviating their suffering. * Refraining from initiating force against others. * Resolution of differences and conflict through conversation and mutual understanding, rather than force or coercion.

gonehome 3y ago
Most people hold wildly inconsistent views in their head all the time, despite obvious contradictions - it’s the default human behavior. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZWvGhhFJ7dY/belief-in-belief https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZWvGhhFJ7dY/belief-in-...
tbrownaw 3y ago
How would someone with those beliefs handle the trolley problem?

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

It's not their ideas, exactly. It's their moral judgment. See, the unabomber manifesto was essentially a moral argument. "These things cause damage" is a moral observation. (Because how are you going to define "damage" without moral judgment?) "Therefore we should destroy technology" is a moral judgment (because you can't get there without the moral judgment of "humans should not be damaged"). So, the point is, I'm not going to trust the moral judgment of a murderer. Every fact he says in the manifesto may be correct. But his moral judgment is self-evidently terrible. And he reaches his conclusions through that moral judgment.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

The other angle is future deterrence. If a society collectively shuns ideals from violent terrorists, they will have less incentive to be violent.

watwut 3y ago

That still does not imply we should listen to people like Kaczynsky or take his ideas seriously. He sux and should not matter. If someone else with better decisions making recond expresses same ideas in another context, we can listen to him. The only thing that distinguishes Kaczynsky from, well, any random dude, are the bombs. Otherwise he is a no one. And random dude that did not send bombs makes more sense to listen to.