[extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Sun Apr 8 23:54:03 UTC 2007

Jef writes

> On 4/8/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>> I would even go so far as to require judges when handing out
>> sentences to do so with passion.
> Lee, I think you're heading in the right direction, but rather than
> expressing passion which obscures rationality in the courtroom, our
> judgments should calmly and clearly proclaim our values (rather than
> pretending to be objective as is so often the case.)

Well, they can do both. Hmm.  I guess probably that the right
thing to do would be to dispassionately hand out the sentence.
And *then* follow it with how the judge feels (or would have
felt had he been the victim or the victim's family).

> It's the right direction because it helps us mature beyond the fairy
> tales of "intrinsic rights" and "objective justice" and moves us
> toward taking responsibility for creating a future that increasingly
> promotes shared values that work.

I agree with your denigration of "intrinsic rights", but I don't see
what's wrong with clinging to a concept of objective justice. Or
is it just a terminological query?

> On the other hand, people as yet generally don't appreciate rationally
> promoting shared values, so -- let the passions flow and we'll use the
> inadvertent consequences as opportunities to learn and grow. :-(
> This goes to Anna's question about manipulation.  Raised in a mostly
> calm, reasonable family and being an INTJ by disposition, I tend to
> approach disputes in terms of principles.  But outside my EDA
> (Environment of Developmental Adaptation), many times (depending on
> the personality of the other), the reaction in response to a calm
> principled appeal is along the lines of "Yeah, okay...so what?"

Really?  Even on my most principled days I never get that reaction.
Your punch lines probably need polishing.  (Or maybe they're just
failing to get your point, i.e., you've perhaps been talking over their
heads, assuming they understood more than you should have.)

> If I then intentionally demonstrate a bit of personal anger or outrage,
> then it's "Okay, I get you."  Is this manipulation?  Is it "wrong"?

If it truly aids the understanding of the other, it is commendable. But
if all that they were interested in was your feelings on the subject, 
then there is still a problem.  But it's not your problem, it's theirs.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list