139Re: A Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Problem
- Nov 18, 2004On Thursday 18 November 2004 16:22, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2004, Ofir Carny wrote about "Re: A Solution to theIsraeli-Palestinian Problem":
> > Two words: Define solve.That's not how I define a solution. I define the solution as to minimize the
> > 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
number of people who are innocent who suffer from this.
> In that sense, the current situation is probably much better thanWhere exactly do I say that one needs to arm anyone?
> your "solution" of arming everyone, sitting back, and watching the fun (or,
> more likely, the bloodbath).
> The way you seem to define a "solution" is to maximize the total amountListen, Nadav. I stated a few individual rights, and demonstrated why they are
> 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.
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 aIt's not. By entering a bloodbath, you are harming others. And freedom
> 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,
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
> but doesn't do much for your wellbeing. With thisA person who is free from oppression, can engineer his life in a way that will
> 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.
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,_You_ define rules for yourself. Not _others_ define rules for you. You should
> 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,
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 youI do set rules for myself. I don't initiate force, coersion or fraud against
> just do whatever you want all the time. (if there is interest, and I didn't
> already mention this, I can expend on this).
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?
Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>