Words are but the only true connection between one person and another. Without words, what could we possibly know of another human being?


OF COURSE our words are important. Granted, some words are more important than others, but you try going a whole day without saying a single word. Or if you don't want to try that, maybe go up to some girl you like and say, "Hey ****face, you're looking particularly ugly today. Did you know that I hate you, and refuse to accept you as a functioning part of society." If words aren't important, why should you hesitate? Why do we employ hostage negotiators? Lawyers? Diplomats?

Frankly, I think most people don't put enough stock in their words and the effect they have on the world around them. FutureTrackStar's proposed message of "I love you, and would like you to kill neither person," rates pretty low on my list of actions that would illicit a favourable outcome in this situation, but at the same time, that doesn't mean it's completely impossible, either.

That does not change the fact that he has the power in any way. Your personal thoughts on that matter has no basis in reality, it doesn't add or take away from the fact that he has the power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand the argument you and FTS are advancing consists in saying that because the spaceship man would be directly responsible for whatever he does, all courses of actions you take are equal in regards to their potential impact on whatever he does, and thus should only be judged in themselves. I am contending that whatever action you take would play a causal role in whatever action the spaceship man takes, and thus you cannot just say, "it's his fault," to excuse not doing everything possible to save every living human and animal on the planet from extinction and death.

- I don't see how any blame could be put on you if you tell the man that you would have him commit neither act. How would that argument go...?

A: I told him not to.
B: You didn't play his game and you should have.
A: Why should I have played his game? Neither choice was any good. I usually like the good choice, so that's what I went with.
B: Yea but you still should have played by his rules.
A: Why?
B: Because he said he would kill everybody if you didn't!
A: So. He's not a freakin' robot! I told him that I would prefer him to do the Right thing. Is there something Wrong with telling him to do Right?
B: No, but...
A: Then you cannot blame me for this! I did nothing Wrong! How can you blame a man if he did nothing Wrong!
B: You didn't do everything in your power to save mankind! (EI)
A: And what would have been a more efficient route?
B: Telling him to kill the sex predator!
A: But it would be Wrong to tell him to do that...
------
- And that is why we disagree... because you think he actually does have the power in that situation. But he truly doesn't.

I actually agree with you here.


I actually disagree with you here. He has no power over you. (Except theoretically to kill you... although that isn't implied in the scenario, is it?)
BUT... he does have power over the lives of the others and that is what you being challenged to direct. I choose not to direct his power against either party. He must take responsibility for his own actions.

If on the other hand he is a non-responsible thing like a robot, then my response is the same but for a different reason... lets say the dilemma is this: If I say A it destroys B and if I say B it destroys A... BUT if I refuse to choose it destroys both... THEN I HAVE moral responsibility to choose. However, the choice then becomes one of economy, not morality.
If it is 1 good person or 10 bad people, I condemn the 1 good person, If it is 1 bad person and 10 good people I condemn the 1 bad person.

If however, the robot will only destroy what I choose for it to destroy, then I need make no response at all.

So is the dilemma it will destroy what I neglect to save or will it spare that which I choose for it to spare?

It wouldn't, because all intelligent life on Earth was annihilated, and you got shot. Even so, I think the argument would go, "what kind of monster risks the life of every man, woman, and child on Earth; all of human civilization; every plant, animal, and microbe; for the sake of a single murderer and rapist?"

So you are going with economics decision as well... what if it is a whole population of murders and liars and thieves vs one truly honorable, decent human being?

and if you say "none of the actions" he'll have more chances to kill YOU.

So? How many "more chances"? How does your playing his game lessen the risk? And how does one measure that risk with the risk of the other lives?

If killing me relieves his lust for death, so be it... so what? I am gonna die anyway, eventually. At least I won't have to live with the moral implications of a decision. (See how it all comes down to "ME ME ME"?)

I can't speak for FTS. But in THIS particular case, it seems unlikely to me that anything I would say would have any impact on the kidnapper whatsoever (although I'd probably surprise him if I told him to kill everyone; myself and the rapist included).

People don't tend to make elaborate, expensive plans, only to have them hinge on a stranger. Attempts at persuasion have already failed.

Also, even if my words will have an impact, it seems nonsensical to be able to guess HOW they're going to impact him. Maybe he plans to do the opposite of whatever I say. Obviously you should try to save humanity; but I have yet to hear one suggestion for how to do that (excluding the silly ones like overpowering an entire spaceship crew while tied up).