Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:49:22 -0400
From: Stirling Newberry <allegro-AT-thecia.net>
Subject: Re: PLC: Arguing for Altruism


The bodyguard is also not a counter example:

The body guard does nto know for a fact he is going to die if he jumps, and
he will be treated very well if he does jump and saves his leader. On the
other hand he knows, almost to a certainty, that if he does not jump, that
while the chance of their being after is better than if he does, that that
after is liable to be very unpleasant.

So the punishment for not jumping should be expected to be set at the level
which will persuade people that they are willing to risk the jump.

Further the guard could rationally come to the following conclusion: the
hestiation it takes to make the judgement itself could be long enough to
make it so that he won't jump in time. Since the results of hesitating and
jumping are as bad, or worse, than not jumping, he may decide to train
himself to teh point where he won't even make the judgement at the time
required.

- - -

Again: I assert that the hard egoist position is closed: it can either
argue that the obvious good was the end, and hence selfish - or that what
ever f result that occurs came about because human beings are irrational
and is what was really wanted.

Ther are all kinds of results from this, but the point remains - the system
itself is as closed as "God created the Universe, any evidence that God did
not create the Universe was created by God to test our faith."



Stirling Newberry
business: openmarket.com
personal: allegro-AT-thecia.net
War and Romance: http://www.thecia.net/users/allegro/public_html




     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---