Hey I know you posted this a long time ago but I found this a few weeks on tvtropes and found it very clever.
But the ending confuses me, so I’m hoping you’ll reply to my message:
Are we supposed to agree with the antagonist? When I first read it I thought “ahah I get it, its about people blindly accepting whats put in front of them, so Hiro representing that blindly accepted what he said about remaking the world and we’re supposed to think about it and realise he was too gullible” then reading some of the comments made me wonder if he was supposed to be right.
That disturbed, but then I wondered, if one had god like power would it be a good idea to try to remake the world or would their be too great a risk of people **Ing it up?
If the power to remake the world exists and you know how to get it, then the responsibility is already upon you. From then on, if you refuse to act, every evil and wrong thing that happens in the world is your fault.
If you act, and you screw up and destroy the universe or send everyone into everlasting torment, then that is also your fault. WanderingHero was asking whether the risk of benefits would outweigh the cost. I think that if god like power wasn’t accompanied by god like knowledge, it would probably be a very good idea to give up that power.
I think I disagree. The arbitrary and unfeeling processes of the universe can probably be outperformed by anything with a shred of empathy and intellect. You’d just want to be really, really careful, and try to create something better than yourself to hand off control to.
...though it’s worth keeping in mind that the usual connotations of “my fault” don’t necessarily apply. For example, if lots of other people also know how to get that power, then it’s also equally lots of other people’s fault.
Law makes a distinction between but-for cause and proximate cause. All proximate causes are but-for causes, but not all but-for causes are proximate causes. The distinction exists to differentiate effects of one’s acts that one is responsible for and effects that are not one’s responsibility.
Unless you’re talking about the act-omission distinction I don’t see how this doesn’t blatantly contradict what “MarkusRamikin” was saying. “Every evil and wrong thing that happens in the world is your fault” vs. “effects that are not one’s responsibility”. But you don’t make an argument that the law or the act-omission distinction is justified so I don’t understand what your comment was trying to do. Are you just criticizing the way the legal system works?
Yes, American law disagrees with the position MarcusRamikin appears to be articulating. Under American law, Alice can do something wrong, that act can harm Bob, and Alice will not be responsible for the harm if her act was not a proximate cause of Bob’s injury.
The wikipedia article lays it out pretty well. In the cases the article cites, X erred in operating a boat, damaging a bridge and therefore disrupting the commerce along the river. X was held liable for the damage to the bridge, but not the losses from disruption of the commerce. Even though X was not held (financially) responsible, no one thinks that X did not cause the disruption of the river traffic.
Hey I know you posted this a long time ago but I found this a few weeks on tvtropes and found it very clever. But the ending confuses me, so I’m hoping you’ll reply to my message:
Are we supposed to agree with the antagonist? When I first read it I thought “ahah I get it, its about people blindly accepting whats put in front of them, so Hiro representing that blindly accepted what he said about remaking the world and we’re supposed to think about it and realise he was too gullible” then reading some of the comments made me wonder if he was supposed to be right.
That disturbed, but then I wondered, if one had god like power would it be a good idea to try to remake the world or would their be too great a risk of people **Ing it up?
If the power to remake the world exists and you know how to get it, then the responsibility is already upon you. From then on, if you refuse to act, every evil and wrong thing that happens in the world is your fault.
If you act, and you screw up and destroy the universe or send everyone into everlasting torment, then that is also your fault. WanderingHero was asking whether the risk of benefits would outweigh the cost. I think that if god like power wasn’t accompanied by god like knowledge, it would probably be a very good idea to give up that power.
I think I disagree. The arbitrary and unfeeling processes of the universe can probably be outperformed by anything with a shred of empathy and intellect. You’d just want to be really, really careful, and try to create something better than yourself to hand off control to.
I don’t think I’m capable of having that much power and not being tempted to use it recklessly.
I would need to think about it.
...though it’s worth keeping in mind that the usual connotations of “my fault” don’t necessarily apply. For example, if lots of other people also know how to get that power, then it’s also equally lots of other people’s fault.
Yeah, of course. Not to mention the actual direct perpetrators of the evils themselves.
Law makes a distinction between but-for cause and proximate cause. All proximate causes are but-for causes, but not all but-for causes are proximate causes. The distinction exists to differentiate effects of one’s acts that one is responsible for and effects that are not one’s responsibility.
Unless you’re talking about the act-omission distinction I don’t see how this doesn’t blatantly contradict what “MarkusRamikin” was saying. “Every evil and wrong thing that happens in the world is your fault” vs. “effects that are not one’s responsibility”. But you don’t make an argument that the law or the act-omission distinction is justified so I don’t understand what your comment was trying to do. Are you just criticizing the way the legal system works?
Yes, American law disagrees with the position MarcusRamikin appears to be articulating. Under American law, Alice can do something wrong, that act can harm Bob, and Alice will not be responsible for the harm if her act was not a proximate cause of Bob’s injury.
The wikipedia article lays it out pretty well. In the cases the article cites, X erred in operating a boat, damaging a bridge and therefore disrupting the commerce along the river. X was held liable for the damage to the bridge, but not the losses from disruption of the commerce. Even though X was not held (financially) responsible, no one thinks that X did not cause the disruption of the river traffic.