Newton's third law tells us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Programmers and engineers know that for every "fix" or "engineering change", is very likely that there will be "side effects". Military ops often have "collateral damage" . Drugs have "adverse reactions" (side effects) and "interactions".
When you mess with any system, it is nearly certain that you will have some sort of side effect, and it will often be negative -- and quite often VERY negative.
So ... We have drastically reduced the teaching of any morality outside of "follow your own desires", "tradition is immoral / corrupt", "if it feels good, do it".
Are we surprised that there are some effects of this change to the system that are not altogether positive?
Although, as we continue to "progress", what is the rational / scientific reason that we can declare this murder to be "wrong"? It looks like a group of people enjoyed this murder.
Bentham's Utilitarianism would tell us that if more people found pleasure in this killing than found pain, the action was "good".
As we continue to "progress", perhaps a vote of some constituency could be taken to determine the rightness or wrongness ?
Murphy's Law states that "If it can go wrong, it will". It is a VERY unscientific "law", however any experienced technologist will testify to it's truth. Or as Scotty so aptly stated:
Is human culture / society a complex system? If so, is it rational to assume that massive changes made with little thought beyond "we want to be free (even applauded) to do anything we want to do"!, is nearly certain to have negative (catastrophic?) side effects.
Do you perceive any? If you do, perhaps the faith that massive change is always for the better is worthy of some scrutiny,
No comments:
Post a Comment