3 ms·
I'm not very convinced by by your slippery slope argument with regard to the US, at least in domestic affairs. (foreign is another matter) It's probably not a
by platz 14y ago
I'm not very convinced by by your slippery slope argument with regard to the US, at least in domestic affairs. (foreign is another matter)
It's probably not a good idea to mix the emotional with the analytical, but when it happens, the emotional wins; we're human beings.
I hate to get moral/philosophical, but utilitarian motives, in the eyes of societal norms, usually is the loosing position. The canonical example of this is the man waiting by the railroad switch who must decide whether to divert a train to certain doom or let the train run over an individual. According to society the man must always divert the train.
- zanny 14y agoYour example is situational, and also doesn't come close to his argument. The super-parent argument is that the loss of life in the immediate is shallow compared to the inevitable loss of life from the loss of liberty and rise of tyrrany in the name of security. If people are on the train, condemning many to die for one is never the right decision. If the train is unmanned (assumed if there is no conductor to manage it) you are trying to minimize loss of life, so of course you divert the train and just lose some resources in the crash. That example just doesn't make sense.
- platz 14y agoYes my example was poor; I don't think I got it right, perhaps I forgot the correct form. I guess I just am not sure how this inevitable tyranny manifests in deaths, but I can appreciate the point.
- platz 14y agoAs a side note, these guys might not have even been caught if we were not living in 'the panopticon'.