21st September 2005, 3:47 PM
There is one basic thing I think both sides can agree on. Do that which causes the least amount of harm. From there, it should become a debate as to what constitutes "harm". Should harm be seen as whatever the individual who may potentially be harmed sees as harmful, or should there be an absolute standard of harm which some may or may not agree with?
That debate should be examined using logical standards, like, are there any paradoxes, ridiculous conclusions that one side MUST reach if they stick with that logic, or perhaps a question on whether or not one or the other is something has to use some sort of arbitrary method of establishing harm.
And, once that standard is agreed upon logically, rather than emotionally, some actual work can be done.
That debate should be examined using logical standards, like, are there any paradoxes, ridiculous conclusions that one side MUST reach if they stick with that logic, or perhaps a question on whether or not one or the other is something has to use some sort of arbitrary method of establishing harm.
And, once that standard is agreed upon logically, rather than emotionally, some actual work can be done.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)