Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

139Re: A Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Problem

Expand Messages
  • Shlomi Fish
    Nov 18, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thursday 18 November 2004 16:22, Nadav Har'El wrote:
      > On Thu, Nov 18, 2004, Ofir Carny wrote about "Re: A Solution to the
      Israeli-Palestinian Problem":
      > > Two words: Define solve.
      > > Solution does not mean getting to a quasi static state, not does it
      > > mean taking action which is desireable by some critiria, it means a
      > > way to get to a desirable state. If you accept this definition, define
      > > the desireable state, and show how your plan would achieve it,
      > > otherwise, as I said, define solve.
      >
      > This is a good point.
      >
      > One possible way to define a "solution" is to minimize the number of people
      > killed.

      That's not how I define a solution. I define the solution as to minimize the
      number of people who are innocent who suffer from this.

      > In that sense, the current situation is probably much better than
      > your "solution" of arming everyone, sitting back, and watching the fun (or,
      > more likely, the bloodbath).
      >

      Where exactly do I say that one needs to arm anyone?

      > The way you seem to define a "solution" is to maximize the total amount
      > of freedom that everyone enjoys. But most people disagree with you that
      > this should be called a "solution". Do you also think "a solution" to the
      > car-accident problem is to let everyone drive more freely without rules,
      > "a solution" to the bad education is to let children not come to school if
      > they want, and so on? Most people will disagree.
      >

      Listen, Nadav. I stated a few individual rights, and demonstrated why they are
      true. If you drive without rules, you can potentially harm someone else, and
      so you are violating his life. That's why you need these rules when you
      drive. On the other hand, a soldier who is protecting the territories is
      doing so against his will. And so he is forced to do so. And where exactly
      did I say that my intentiond was to maximize "freedom".

      > A more sensible way to define "a solution", if you still want to go with a
      > utilitarian definition (i.e., maximizing something over the whole society),
      > is not to maximize freedom, but rather to maximize something like
      > "happiness" or "wellbeing". Being free to pick up a weapon and enter a
      > bloodbath is freedom,

      It's not. By entering a bloodbath, you are harming others. And freedom
      involves not exercising initiatory force, threat of force or fraud against
      someone's life or property. It's not freedom from oppression. It's freedom
      from responsibilities.

      > but doesn't do much for your wellbeing. With this
      > definition, a bloodbath is a bad solution. The current situation is also a
      > bad solution, because many people are suffering. A solution of this type
      > would require few people to be left suffering, and you done nothing in your
      > document to explain why that should happen. Remember, in the "suffering"
      > you should also count the people who die and their relatives - don't be
      > fooled by the rhetorics like "My son wanted to die, he's a martyr now!" -
      > these relatives are still suffering.
      >
      > I probably mentioned this already in this group, but being free to do
      > whatever you want is not equalent to being happy, or even to getting what
      > you really want.

      A person who is free from oppression, can engineer his life in a way that will
      maximize his happiness and well-being. But, if he is oppressed somehow, being
      told that he has to sacrifice his life, time or resources for some "higher
      cause", then he has a far lesser chance of becoming happy. If all righteous
      people were free from oppression, then they would all be happy.

      > The Existancialist philosophers talked a lot about this,
      > Sartre talked about the "Nausea" that too much freedom means, and perhaps
      > Kirkegaard put it most elequently, when he explained how, when you define
      > rules for yourself and follow them,

      _You_ define rules for yourself. Not _others_ define rules for you. You should
      not consume drugs. You should pay Income Tax. You should serve in the army.
      You may not bear arms. Etc.

      > you are actually more free, than if you
      > just do whatever you want all the time. (if there is interest, and I didn't
      > already mention this, I can expend on this).

      I do set rules for myself. I don't initiate force, coersion or fraud against
      another person or his property. Otherwise, I also try to keep myself healthy.
      But otherwise, I just do what maximizes my happiness and well-being. What
      rules did Krikegaard want me to have? And why should a different person tell
      me what rules these should be?

      Regards,

      Shlomi Fish

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
      Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

      Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic