The Ethics of Belief

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I would like to discuss here the views of William Kingdon Clifford, 1845-1879, mathematian and philosopher, as expressed in his essay: "The Ethics of Belief". I will post the essay in parts, so that each part can be discussed separately.

Thus comes part one:

The Ethics of Belief

I. THE DUTY OF INQUIRY

A SHIPOWNER was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not over-well built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him to great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.

Let us alter the case a little, and suppose that the ship was not unsound after all; that she made her voyage safely, and many others after it. Will that diminish the guilt of her owner? Not one jot. When an action is once done, it is right or wrong for ever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that. The man would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. The question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him.
 

Ryan

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Interesting. I was just reading a section from "Gnosis Vol II" which may relate:

Mouravieff said:
The only love which exterior man is capable of conceiving and offering, this pagan love, this remnant of divine love, although it is subjective and passionate in substance, retains some quality from its origin. Because it comes from a noumenal force, it cannot be totally subordinated to the demands of the Personality, that reflection of the 'World', as it is called in the scriptures.

Man implicitly recognizes this fact by his profound sympathy towards the sincere passions. Art and literature abound in hymns to human love. When some work has as theme a conflict between a passion and social imperatives, the triumph of duty receives the approval of our thoughts but does not win the assent of our hearts. When a jury acquits the author of a crime of passion, it means that over and above the case submitted to them they want to recognize the transcendent character of passionate love.

Esotericism reveals the source of this error committed by jurors. They attribute the characteristics of human Love to passionate love, through which man binds himself to the animal world by his fall from LA to the SOL of the lateral octave. But an animal has control neither over its actions nor over its attitude toward these actions. Exterior man has no more control over his actions: for example over adultery which has been the motive for crime and yet, participating in the LA of the lateral octave and endowed with an intellectual centre and so with a critical mind, he remains responsible for his attitude to his actions.
Might this responsibility for one's attitude towards one's actions as stated by M, relate to what Clifford has termed "the right to believe"? By stifling his doubts, the man in Clifford's story has made a choice about his attitude towards his actions, whether he admits to that choice as being conscious or not. He has neglected to consciously engage the function that (according to M) separates exterior man from the animal kingdom.

I think that Clifford is correct in phrasing this "The DUTY of Inquiry", as it suggests that this is a responsibility given to humanity by Nature/the Universe, and that by shirking this responsibility humanity loses the "right to believe" in the conclusions or opinions formed on any subject.

Nontheless, casual observation of human societies and cultures suggests that this duty is one seldom fulfilled these days. Just look at the success of the mass media as a brainwashing tool.
 

mudrabbit

Jedi Master
He did not spare the cost to maintain the ship, but he did spare the cost of insurance. And when collected, " told no tales." What he seemed worried about was whether the ship would make the voyage. Just in case it didn't, he hedged his bets by having the insurance. I think all he was concerned about was his pocket. Not the vessel or the people on it.

Peg
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
WKC said:
It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.
This is the crux of the matter, that he "acquired his belief" not by patient investigation, but by STIFLING DOUBT.

Doubt can be stifled in many ways, but the chief thing about it is the "emotional payoff." Not only is one able to feel "peaceful" about their assurances after they have stifled the doubts, but emotion itself plays a huge part in the process.

Nobody likes to "feel bad," and let's face it, facing the truth about reality very often feels very, very bad. There is a passage in Robert de Ropp's book "Self Completion" that talks about this essential thing: the stifling of doubts otherwise known as believing in LIES.

De Ropp said:
"The Work involves the transformation of a muddled, delusion-ridden slave
into an enlightened, integrated master. ...

The slave has no control over his or her life, is pushed about by external
forces, is at the mercy of casual impressions, a slave to habits, most of
them bad, a prey to credulity, suggestibility, hopes and fears.

Above all, the slave is a creature of fantasy. It inhabits a world of
dreams. It is cut off from knowledge of the real world by a mechanism in its
brain, the working of which generates delusions.


It does not know that it lies. It is a slave that dreams that it is free.
It is a liar that dreams that it knows the truth.

The Master has liberated himself from the delusion-producing mechanism in
his brain.

He is a dweller in the real world.

In order to enter this world, he has had to sacrifice his dreams. He has
dared to confront the truth about himself and about his fellow men. He has
been strong enough and cunning enough to escape from the prison in which the
slaves pass their lives. He is fully awake. He has seen the truth and the
truth has set him free. But he has paid a mighty high price to attain that
freedom.


Think very carefully. Can you pay that price? Do you dare to confront
reality? Can you bear to know the truth about yourself and your fellow
humans?


That truth is not the least bit comforting. Here we have several {billion}
human beings going round like blindfolded donkeys in a treadmill, driven
from behind by the stick of fear, lured forward from in front by the carrot
of greed {I WANT}. The overseer of the Treadmill, a great and terrible
spirit, has made certain that the donkeys do not try to escape. The spirit
has done this by the very simple procedure of hypnotizing the donkeys into
thinking that they are already free.

Can the paralysing grip of the hypnosis be relaxed?

For most of the donkeys it cannot. Any well-meaning liberator who attempts
to awaken them from their state of sleep will certainly be attacked, kicked
and bitten for daring to suggest to the donkeys that they are slaves.

Such a suggestion robs them of their fondest illusion, the illusion that
they are free and masters of their fate.

The donkeys much prefer to live in their unreal world.

It is easy to dream, hard to confront reality.

Given a choice between what is easy and what is difficult, the donkeys will
inevitably follow the easy way.


How does it happen that any of these slaves manage to escape from the
Treadmill and turn themselves into masters?

The answer is that very few really do escape. The overseer of the
Treadmill, the dread spirit that some call maya, some the Devil or the
Father of Lies, has many good tricks at his disposal. He has been around a
long time and understands very well the inner weaknesses of the human race.

The Spirit of the Lie knows that his ancient adversary, the Spirit of Truth,
can sometimes influence these hypnotized donkeys. It can give them a
fleeting glimpse of reality and awaken them for a moment from the fog of
dreams in which they habitually pass their time. There is, in the human
psyche, a will to truth, but this will is weak compared with its opponent,
the will to self-deception.
The Spirit of Truth works through the will to
Truth.

But the Lying Spirit knows how to counteract and neutralize the will to
truth before it enables the slaves to liberate themselves from their
delusions. It does this by cunningly preparing a counterfeit, an imitation
of the real work, a fantasy Work.

It is in this fantasy Work that so many of the slaves that try to escape
become entrapped. The fantasy Work enables them to think that they are
working on themselves when, in fact, they have merely swapped one set of
dreams for another set. [...]

The pseudo-Work consists of a series of traps. Falling into any one of
these traps will suffice to bring the real Work to a halt. Some people fall
into one trap, some into another. Some manage, after long struggles, to
escape from the traps. Others never escape for the simple reason that they
do not know that they are trapped.

Who, then, can enter the real Work?

It is open only to full, dues-paying members of the SOT club. The letters
SOT stand for Seekers of Truth. [...]

The motto of the club: "I would rather know the truth, however terrible,
than take refuge in some system of comforting delusions."
[...]

Although the SOT club is open to everyone, very few people become members.
This is because they cannot afford to pay the dues. To enter the SOT club
and become a full member, one must sacrifice one's illusions, particularly
one's illusions about oneself.


This is what most people dare not do. Even those who have escaped from the
Treadmill would often rather enter the fantasy Work and keep their illusions
about themselves than enter the real Work and sacrifice them.
And so, because it is hard, because they might have to give up some illusion about themselves that they WANT and LIKE - illusions about things that they WANT and LIKE - so many people get stuck somewhere and enter a "pseudo-work." And generally, these illusions have most to do with feeding relationships, personal, intimate relationships.

It's easy enough to see the mote in someone else's eye, but what about the beam in your own?
 

Meg

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
De Ropp said:
Although the SOT club is open to everyone, very few people become members.

This is because they cannot afford to pay the dues. To enter the SOT club
and become a full member, one must sacrifice one's illusions, particularly
one's illusions about oneself.

This is what most people dare not do. Even those who have escaped from the
Treadmill would often rather enter the fantasy Work and keep their illusions
about themselves than enter the real Work and sacrifice them.
To me, this has been essential mental work in identifying programming. The beliefs I had were based on assumptions, wishful thinking, ignorance, what I have been told to think and how I should think by society at large, including family. Abandoning those notions and starting with new beliefs based on knowledge and research is quite liberating. The Duty of Inquiry is indispensable as it relates to the Work OSIT.

It reminds me on some level of Herbert Spencer:
Spencer said:
The is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
 
G

Guest

Guest
A SHIPOWNER was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not over-well built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy.
This passage tells me he was aware of the risks of continued sailing.

These doubts preyed upon his mind and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him to great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also.
His justification not to reduce or eliminate the risk of continued sailing.Still aware of the greater risk.Therefore demonstrating ignorance of the risk.

He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors.
Here he further demonstrates ignorance of the risk and a severance of responsibility to the lives of the people on board the vessel.

In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.
Are the builders and contractors also responsible, for not informing the authorities of the doubtful seaworthiness of the vessel.Indeed a case of manslaughter would hold ground if kin were to seek compensation for the shipowners negligence.
 
A

Anders

Guest
Laura said:
WKC said:
The overseer of the Treadmill, a great and terrible
spirit, has made certain that the donkeys do not try to escape. The spirit
has done this by the very simple procedure of hypnotizing the donkeys into
thinking that they are already free.

Can the paralysing grip of the hypnosis be relaxed?

For most of the donkeys it cannot.
Even the shipowner seems to employ a self hypnosis, that paralyzes his thinking and thus enables him to take the easy and comfortable road of doing nothing. His hypnotic reasoning relies on past merits of his ship and not on what is actually the facts on the ground. To make sure that the illusion doesn't burst he refrains to ask people independent of him to evaluate the ship. People, who would have no vested interest in the shipowner, but only in establishing the objective facts about the ship.

WK Clifford said:
Let us alter the case a little, and suppose that the ship was not unsound after all; that she made her voyage safely, and many others after it. Will that diminish the guilt of her owner? Not one jot. When an action is once done, it is right or wrong for ever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that. The man would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. The question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him.
It reminds me of something I read in the book "The third City; Philosophy at war with positivism." by Borna Bebek about noetic thinkers:
Borna Bebek said:
For noetic thinkers, in contrast, the only criterion for judging an action good or bad is the sentiment in which the action is undertaken. This however, entails no preference for outcome, hence no 'good intention'. In Plato's Laws (863e - 864a), for example, right is that which is of noble sentiment, i.e. which is undertaken in the sentiment of good wish, the mastery of the soul by good desire.
Laura said:
It's easy enough to see the mote in someone else's eye, but what about the beam in your own?
Indeed! That is the hard work for which a group is needed as Gurdjieff says.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
THE ETHICS OF BELIEF (1879), W. K. Clifford

Part 2:

There was once an island in which some of the inhabitants professed a religion teaching neither the doctrine of original sin nor that of eternal punishment. A suspicion got abroad that the professors of this religion had made use of unfair means to get their doctrines taught to children. They were accused of wresting the laws of their country in such a way as to remove children from the care of their natural and legal guardians; and even of stealing them away and keeping them concealed from their friends and relations. A certain number of men formed themselves into a society for the purpose of agitating the public about this matter. They published grave accusations against individual citizens of the highest position and character, and did all in their power to injure these citizens in their exercise of their professions. So great was the noise they made, that a Commission was appointed to investigate the facts; but after the Commission had carefully inquired into all the evidence that could be got, it appeared that the accused were innocent. Not only had they been accused on insufficient evidence, but the evidence of their innocence was such as the agitators might easily have obtained, if they had attempted a fair inquiry. After these disclosures the inhabitants of that country looked upon the members of the agitating society, not only as persons whose judgment was to be distrusted, but also as no longer to be counted honourable men. For although they had sincerely and conscientiously believed in the charges they had made, yet they had no right to believe on such evidence as was before them. Their sincere convictions, instead of being honestly earned by patient inquiring, were stolen by listening to the voice of prejudice and passion.

Let us vary this case also, and suppose, other things remaining as before, that a still more accurate investigation proved the accused to have been really guilty. Would this make any difference in the guilt of the accusers? Clearly not; the question is not whether their belief was true or false, but whether they entertained it on wrong grounds. They would no doubt say, "Now you see that we were right after all; next time perhaps you will believe us." And they might be believed, but they would not thereby become honourable men. They would not be innocent, they would only be not found out. Every one of them, if he chose to examine himself in foro conscientiae [Before the tribunal of conscience], would know that he had acquired and nourished a belief, when he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him; and therein he would know that he had done a wrong thing.
 

Ruth

The Living Force
The story of the ship reminds me of the 'state of the nation' in America. Its infrastructure and the deluded individuals in charge. The poor country is no more than a sinking ship. The parallel doesn't end there, however.

The powerful reap the benefits of their delusions where as the 'masses' invariably get punished for it.

This, of course extends to all situations 'where bad things happen'. It doesn't matter if the person responsible is a powerful ship owner who deliberately deceives himself into a bad decision making, or a small lowly "nobody" who makes a genuine mistake, does it in good faith, with no malice or premeditation.

The powerful will, at best, receive nothing but a 'tut tut' and a scowly look and even occasionally a nod and a wink. While the "nobody" gets crucified.

Its funny, but the whole thing has me thinking more about psychology than philosophy. Why do all those "nobodys" allow this? Why are they allowing it now? It seems that people fear reality and truth much more than they fear pain, torture, death and disempowerment. I don't 'get' that. In the past their were mass uprisings and protests (even as 'recently' as the sixties). Now? Nothing. What does that mean? Perhaps the victims don't want to know about the truth, while the perpetrators simply don't care. How cheap life has become.
 

Tigersoap

The Living Force
What amazes me is that this essay was written in 1879 and is describing what is still going on today.

This make me ask to myself Do I do the same as the Shipowner, do I listen to hearsay without checking the facts, do I see the mote in your eye instead of the beam in mine ?
I want to say no, I am not like that but would that be very honest ? I don't think so.
Ok now if I know that, it's getting harder to not DO something about it.

When I read these, it's difficult not to see how psychopaths and friends can and have been using these to their benefit.
Set-up the situation they need, spread rumours and whatever, and if they are found out just keep lying until your ears bleed. Why should they care ? they can't examine themselves.
 

Keit

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Tigersoap said:
When I read these, it's difficult not to see how psychopaths and friends can and have been using these to their benefit.
Set-up the situation they need, spread rumours and whatever, and if they are found out just keep lying until your ears bleed. Why should they care ? they can't examine themselves.
Exactly. And psychopaths (who are really guilty after all) will use the nature of "righteous" members of the agitating society against themselves, because those society members weren't vigilant or aware enough of their inner weaknesses or tendencies to twist or ignore facts that doesn't fit their agenda (even if it was "righteous" agenda with good intentions)

I think it is a good example why it is important to work on our own programs as a starting point of esoteric work. It is actually one of the essentials of esoteric work, because without it, without being prepared to pay the price of stripping off the lies and being aware of dangers from our own predator, no matter how good and high our intentions are, we will always be guilty of ignoring and twisting facts on purpose (or as a result of wishful thinking) in order to appear to ourselves or others as spiritual beings.
Hmm...That's why it is dangerous to "settle" with those who consciously or as a result of wishful thinking chose to believe in lies and spread those lies as teachings. Even if part of their teachings carries some percentage of truth, by falling into their own passion (wishful thinking and twisting facts) they can't be "innocent" or honorable and will be always as a possible liability. So if a person walks a path of finding the "Truth", he must distance himself from those who compromise for less.
 

Zadius Sky

The Living Force
In regards to Part I, in my opinion, I would have refit that ship without worrying about the expense (I'd pay back a loan if needed). The lives of those men are more important than money or reputation. If an evidence says that the ship will likely to break down that leads to a possible sinking, then refit and fix the ship before sending her off. Never ignore the evidence. If that ship made it safely, would you be worried about the next time?

You know, it's funny. It's almost related to a customer service in charge for my car service last week. When Mike (not a real name) told me that I have a bad wheel barrier and needs to be repaired which is discovered while fixing the brakes, I said "okay, can I get it fixed today?" He mentioned that the following week is full and asked me to come by the week after. I expressed my concern to him: "how long will it be okay before it breaks down?" He replied "within a month." I said okay. I then went on driving a car with so much hammering sounds, from home to work. My dad was greatly concerned and told Mike that I usually drive 100 to 120 miles a day and urged him to get the car fixed (which he did the next day). If my wheel barrier didn't get fixed asap, my car would have break down and I might have had an accident. As I was reading the part I of "Ethics of Belief," I thought of Mike's action. He saw the evidence, but he didn't fixed my wheel barrier right there or within the few days. Safety comes first.

I think when considering the evidence, we might wish to consider all possible outcomes. But, would that be a doubt? If you see the evidence that would likely leads to a sinking of the ship, you would then refit the ship without a doubt? Since having doubts after seeing the evidence caused a subjective reaction (if one feel bad because one might lose face), would one need to have an objective approach regardless of what others think? I think so. Then, if you don't DO something about it, you would feel guilty about it afterwards.

Is a belief in evidence any different from a faith in evidence? I see faith in evidence as DOing something about it than a belief in evidence (which might be after the fact being occurred).

osit and fwiw.
 

John G

The Living Force
Tigersoap said:
What amazes me is that this essay was written in 1879 and is describing what is still going on today.

This make me ask to myself Do I do the same as the Shipowner, do I listen to hearsay without checking the facts, do I see the mote in your eye instead of the beam in mine ?
The guy was good, his math is extremely relevent for today too... Well I voted for Bush twice even though in between I signed a "don't start an Iraq War" petition before the war started. I'm glad SOTT exists to help with being a SOT.
 

Azur

The Living Force
The Ethics of Belief

I. THE DUTY OF INQUIRY

A SHIPOWNER was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not over-well built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him to great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.

Let us alter the case a little, and suppose that the ship was not unsound after all; that she made her voyage safely, and many others after it. Will that diminish the guilt of her owner? Not one jot. When an action is once done, it is right or wrong for ever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that. The man would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. The question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him.
Although there is an abstraction about how one can alter their own perception for reasons not readily apparent to themselves, or actively ignored and glossed over (rationalized), there are elements here that bear deeper examination beyond abstract "self-programming" with respect to VALUE.

It is a matter of measuring weight of perceived values.

Here we have a ship owner, business man, selling a service (the ship being able to ferry X across the sea).

He has doubts that the next voyage might not be completed by said ship, hence the service unfulfilled to the contractee(s).

The question that harangues him is monetary: have the ship examined (and the incurred monetary cost). If it is deemed seaworthy, ok. If it is not, it will cost to get it refit.

The ship is in an unknown state and the decision was made without regard to the NATURE of the cargo!

The REAL question is: would the same thought process have occurred if the cargo was tea, or ammunition, or spice? Was there more or less hand wringing because the cargo was human versus tea? And still both were beneath the "value" of loss to the shipowner.

The evaluation of the "cost" or "hurt" or personal financial "loss" of ensuring the ship's seaworthiness was measured against the loss of the cargo. In this case it was KNOWN that the cargo was human beings.

And this is where the financial system cannot account for "cost". Nevermind how far you'd have to go to rationalize that losing "human cargo" costs the same as losing chattel, with the insurance covering same.

That humans rationalize versus being rational is age old, and it WHOLLY depends on their valuation of things external. But most would draw the line, (even in sand, if powerless to effect change), at a certain evaluation of potential loss.

Powerless or not, where the line is drawn says everything about the "objects" being valued, and how the value is internally derived.

If the scenario above had been fed into a complex redacting machine, A.I., HAL, what have you, it would come out with a decision tree that wholly depends on how the loss of the cargo would impact the shipowner's business. And of that, the system would have to have been fed relative "weights" of value depending on the nature of the cargo.

So the issue is: (social?) consensus on the value of the cargo.

From my point of view, and the community I would like to live in, I would want to see him removed from any potential to harm other human beings.

His thinking process is defective according to my bias.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Ruth said:
Why do all those "nobodys" allow this? Why are they allowing it now? It seems that people fear reality and truth much more than they fear pain, torture, death and disempowerment. I don't 'get' that. In the past their were mass uprisings and protests (even as 'recently' as the sixties). Now? Nothing. What does that mean? Perhaps the victims don't want to know about the truth, while the perpetrators simply don't care. How cheap life has become.
All comfortably ignorant on a generous welfare system or comfortable numb on a daily grind.(in Australia anyway)

By the way g`day.:)
 
Top Bottom