The Kzinti and the Pierson Puppeteers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vera_Ljuba
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve read the book. The tasp as used by Nessus induces about ten seconds of intense pleasure. It’s not a droud and it’s not a lobotomy. Nessus used it defensively to stop Speaker-to-Animals from attacking or threatening him.

It would not have been ‘unethical’ for Nessus or Louis Wu to use a laser to stop Speaker-to-Animals from attacking them. Why is it unethical to use a weapon that stops the attacker without harming him?
 
Gorgias said:
No, it doesn’t!

It’s an offense and an injustice against the victim, without a doubt, but it doesn’t impinge on his free will!

Free will is an expression of a desire to take (or defer to take) actions. The action in this case belongs to the aggressor. It’s a sinful action, so he’s using his free will in a way contrary to God’s law.

However, there’s no action on the part of the victim. At best, you might claim that the free will intention of the victim is “I don’t wanna get beaten up.” But, that’s not a free will action on his part. (The aggressor is the author of the action here; it’s unjust, and sinful But, on the part of the victim, there’s no action.)

Here’s the example to help you out: if I said to myself, “it’s my will that GEddie give me one million dollars” and you don’t do that… have you impinged on my free will? Of course not!

So: no “free will impingement” here.

(Moreover, there’s the classic debate over whether free will extends to actually performing the actions, or if it’s limited to the desire to take an action. I’m not proposing we pick up that part of the argument here.)
Click to expand...
Uh.
You beat me up. I want not to be beaten up. What you do to me is against my will.
If I was free to do what I want I would run away or hide so that you could not beat me up. You prevent me from running away. You are interfering with my free will.
 
fhansen said:
Sure, I’d turn enemies into passive pleasure-bots. They’d never amount to much of anything, much like drug users we might know now; they wouldn’t be choosing or struggling for non-violence or for justice within themselves, but at least they’d be harmless.
Click to expand...
Goalpost moving. The question was whether it’s unethical to use the tasp as described to stop an aggressor from violent action. Not whether it’s unethical to addict someone to the tasp, which in the book would clearly take many repetitions of its use.
 
goout said:
oh, ok.

bigger point is, do you agree that you didn’t create yourself? Seems to be an elusive question.
Click to expand...
Why do you prefer to waste time on such nonsensical questions? Obviously my parents created me.
 
Reepicheep said:
I’ve read the book. The tasp as used by Nessus induces about ten seconds of intense pleasure. It’s not a droud and it’s not a lobotomy. Nessus used it defensively to stop Speaker-to-Animals from attacking or threatening him.

It would not have been ‘unethical’ for Nessus or Louis Wu to use a laser to stop Speaker-to-Animals from attacking them. Why is it unethical to use a weapon that stops the attacker without harming him?
Click to expand...
I am very happy to see your rational contribution to the conversation. 🙂 Thank you!
 
Reepicheep said:
Goalpost moving. The question was whether it’s unethical to use the tasp as described to stop an aggressor from violent action. Not whether it’s unethical to addict someone to the tasp, which in the book would clearly take many repetitions of its use.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, although I wasn’t considering whether or not they’d be addicted it. They’d be similar to drug addicts in the sense that the tasp would cause them to be stunted in their spiritual/ emotional/ moral development, if, as with the rest of life here, struggle/overcoming is involved in growing towards perfection.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
Obviously my parents created me.
Click to expand...
Really? Seriously? Which time?
They had sex more than once, right?
Since you say they created you by a sex act, and they had sex more than once, then there are many of you. Right?
Are there more than one of you? Or is there just one?

Did you parents really will you into existence? Or did they participate in a process that you simply are helpless to explain?

No doubt they participated, but the carte blanche statement that they created you is nonsensical, demonstrably.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top