1/ Calling Rotherham "evil" removes personal agency. It seems wrong (illiberal, perhaps) to frame the situation as beyond individual intent, when in fact it was the result of (relatively few!) individuals knowingly defecting...
-
-
I'll give it a read!
-
Quote: 'Anything that inhibits, impedes, or prevents this movement toward the Ultimate Complexity is evil. The wonderful thing about this definition of good and evil is that it is both objective and universally acceptable.’
-
Read a bit, like the same definition as in Asimov's "The Last Question" http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html … Also it's hard to go from moral principles such as that to something like "evil occurred at Rotherham"
-
Yeah it's similar! What makes that bridge of reasoning "hard"?
-
Maybe "hard" is not what you mean. Asking because the quoted character was crime lord in Bombay. While profiting off other things he banished the porn industry on moral principle. He likely would describe the Rotherham perpetrators as evil w/o difficulty.
-
there is no obvious logical argument
-
Rotherham was kind of complex. What's your take on Richard Ramirez?
-
I mostly don't see how to get from "universal complexity" to "human life and relations"
- 13 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.