tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post5685094374696022200..comments2023-05-13T09:35:57.871-04:00Comments on Infophilia: The Greater GoodInfophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-68272603621114309742007-08-26T16:50:00.000-04:002007-08-26T16:50:00.000-04:00Of course, then there's the additional twist that ...Of course, then there's the additional twist that Alton actually failed the test for a field operative, and spends the rest of his days flying a desk. After all, for an organization based on morals, it's kinda crass to fail someone because their personal morals can't be overcome, so instead, congratulate him and keep him from the nasty jobs ;-)<BR/><BR/>As for the religious aspect, there's always the possibility that I stumbled upon some time back, in relation to the concept that the fossil records and all that hoohah were just planted by a testing deity: Who is to say that the holy scriptures are not the test plants, instead of the fossil records? Full of contradictions, pettyness, and goads towards immoral behavior and mindless worhsip, there are certainly enough clues that this is nothing a supreme being would condone. You never know - perhaps once we discard these false idols and can use our minds as intended, we get to graduate to the next state?<BR/><BR/>And there's just as much evidence for that as anything else. Except this one makes more sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-2892521172238762192007-08-22T20:33:00.000-04:002007-08-22T20:33:00.000-04:00Yeah, I'd agree with you there. Even if a God exis...Yeah, I'd agree with you there. Even if a God exists who's performing these tests just like this; he's still immoral. But, of course, I have nothing against the possibility of an immoral god existing, and it's just as valid to play it into Pascal's Wager as any other god.<BR/><BR/>In fact, it almost seems to me like this particular god is a bit more likely than many others given our world (and if we accept that he did do what the Bible says). It's hard to justify what he did in the bible as moral in any case, but this provides at least a better selection criteria for people to bring to heaven.<BR/><BR/>Do I seriously believe such a god exists? Not by a long shot. In fact, it's not even the most likely god in my opinion. That honor goes to the Deist god who did nothing other than create the universe, and has no role after that (meaning no heaven/hell for the dead, too). That's the only proposal for a god which really doesn't contradict anything we know; the problem is that there's supporting evidence for it, so no reason to believe it.Infophilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-81470679482928396372007-08-22T20:14:00.000-04:002007-08-22T20:14:00.000-04:00Well, it's still an interesting philosophical ques...Well, it's still an interesting philosophical question. It ties in some with the question "Is it moral because the Gods ordered it, or did the Gods order it because it's moral", something about which I've recently read.<BR/><BR/>Postulating an omnipotent Yaweh who orders things like slavery, rape, and genocide (and the OT very clearly states that he does) just as a test of character still makes him immoral in my view, knowing that some people will follow those orders.<BR/><BR/>The only possible way I can see him in a less critical light would be if he stopped the crimes just before they were committed, and rendered judgement on the spot. According to the OT, he didn't, so he'd still be responsible for the rape, torture, and death of millions of innocents.<BR/><BR/>If he really existed, he'd be a scumbag and I'd be morally obligated to oppose him at every turn.<BR/><BR/>That's my take after some time to think about it.<BR/><BR/>KissesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-5793969086641783282007-08-20T00:57:00.000-04:002007-08-20T00:57:00.000-04:00Literarily speaking, I'd have to say yecchh... I h...Literarily speaking, I'd have to say yecchh... I hate stories like that. It is essentially a "deus ex machina" which absolves the protagonist from the consequences of making a moral choice. It's a cheat, only half a step better than saying then he woke up and it was all just a dream, phew.<BR/><BR/>One of the classic science fiction stories of all time, Godwin's "The Cold Equations", works precisely because the author didn't allow any easy out; the stowaway girl <B>has</B> to be jettisoned into space, or the emergency despatch ship will crash for lack of fuel, and the girl, the pilot, and the plague-stricken colony will all die. The pilot doesn't even have the choice to sacrifice himself instead, because the girl can't fly the ship. The only mercy the author shows his protagonist is that the girl finds in herself the bravery to accept responsibility for her mistake and go to her death with dignity, rather than the pilot having to kill her and then jettison the corpse.<BR/><BR/>So what if it hadn't been a secret test of character? More to the point, was Alton's response the correct one anyway? If we accept the premise that there's no other way to accomplish his aim (and it's not exactly airtight to say the least, but Alton himself seems to have accepted it), then basically what he has done is to place his personal squeamishness over the deaths of thousands. <BR/><BR/>Why is he being congratulated for this? In what way can it be said that he "passed the test" given that the ending makes clear that next time it might not be a drill? He didn't solve the problem, after all, he only decided that he didn't have the stomach for implementing the one solution he was reasonably sure would work; a harsher judge would call that a flat-out failure, and I definitely don't see how failing to do anything constitutes a success.<BR/><BR/>Take a different track; suppose he'd decided the other way? We can presume that his gun is loaded with blanks or whatever; suppose he 'shoots' the woman, then turns the gun on himself? Would the Peacemakers consider that passing the test or not? Upon discovering the fakery, how would Alton live with the fact that he'd been willing to kill for the Greater Good? Would he be proud of himself, or deeply ashamed? If the latter, would he be too psychologically maimed to be of further use to the Peacemakers, and if so, what's their ethical position looking like now? Whatever happens, it makes for a <B>much</B> more interesting story!<BR/><BR/>Oddly enough, it's pretty easy to see that Alton wouldn't be beating himself up too badly about the choice he did make, even though for all he knew he was indeed letting 'untold thousands die through inaction'; as high-tech militaries like ours know, it's much easier to kill if you don't have to look at all the icky blood.<BR/><BR/>That's why I think that before the President sends troops into battle, he should be forced by law to explain his reasons, not from the Oval Office but standing in front of the Vietnam Memorial... and then, right there on television, he should have to strangle a puppy with his bare hands. If that were the law, we'd have a lot fewer wars.BT Murtaghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12097797699951831531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-74772526971216740322007-08-19T11:26:00.000-04:002007-08-19T11:26:00.000-04:00What a fascinating turn, Infophile.I'll have to ch...What a fascinating turn, Infophile.<BR/><BR/>I'll have to chew on this one a while.<BR/><BR/>KissesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com