May 01, 2007

HYPOTHETICAL - UPDATED 5-1-07 1:15PM

On a post on abortion, Gerard of American Digest mentions this sentiment:

"Of all those babies we destroyed, how many were Einsteins, how many were Mozarts?"

In the comments, we had this exchange:

"how many were Einsteins, how many were Mozarts?"

Statistically, about as many as there were Hitlers, Dahmers, and Chos.

There are persuasive arguments against abortion. I don't find this to be one of them.

Posted by Harvey at April 24, 2007 11:23 AM


We'll leave Hitler out of the equation just this once Harvey.

I'll see your Dahmer and Cho and raise you Einstein and Mozart.

I'm pretty sure which is the winning hand.

Posted by Gerard Van der Leun at April 24, 2007 12:29 PM

A fair enough point. But it got me thinking... at what point would those hands be a tie? In other words, what great man would you give up in order to have had Cho/Dahmer/[insert evil man's name here] never been born?

Mozart was good, but there's plenty of other classical musicians. Would you trade him for Cho?

John Kennedy for Jeffrey Dahmer?

Gandhi for Hitler?

Just something to think about.

UPDATE 5-1-07 1:15PM - Ok, this is getting WAY heavier than I was looking for. I only mentioned the abortion thing to give background to the question, because I thought it'd seem really weird to just ask it out of the blue.

What I meant to go for was just a straight-up fantasy-world exchange of good for bad. Leave abortion out of it. Think of it instead as "If you snap your fingers three times, then Mrs. Kennedy had a headache that night, so John was never conceived - BUT Mrs. Dahmer ALSO gets a headache on Jeffrey's conception night so he never happens either. Would you do it?"

I'm looking for your estimations of what relative value you'd place on various good and bad people. That's all.

For example, I'd give up Jim Henson for Karl Marx. I love muppets, but I *really* hate communism.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

posted by Harvey on May 1, 2007 at 08:55 AM | Permalink | 12 Liars | TrackBack
Trackbacks to HYPOTHETICAL - UPDATED 5-1-07 1:15PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/211398
Comments on HYPOTHETICAL - UPDATED 5-1-07 1:15PM
physics geek exemplified on May 1, 2007 09:31 AM

I would raise your "Mozart was good" to "Mozart was, quite possibly, the greatest classical musician". A bit of overstatement? I guess it depends on who you ask.

With regard to this question, though: In other words, what great man would you give up in order to have had Cho/Dahmer/[insert evil man's name here] never been born?

I believe that you're creating an either or situation where one doesn't necessarily exist. You'd have to believe in some zero sum game, whereby a birth of one great person automatically leads to the birth of some Satan spawn. Suppose instead we postulate a world in which life isn't treated as such a disposable commodity. In such a world, it's quite possible that you would have fewer Dahmers or Chos. I won't get into the whole nature/nurture debate, but suffice it to say that I believe not all monsters are born that way. If there's a way to reduce the number of evil people created after birth, that would reduce the number of monsters overall, without cutting into the number of geniuses or saints being born.

I'm not giving a cause and effect here, one in which a first trimester abortion causes a guy to climb a clocktower with a scoped rifle. Instead, I'm proposing that the idea that, possibly, a couple of generations of societal coarsening could have something to do with the apparently increasing number of bad people in the world.

In any event, while I don't necessarily subscribe to Gerard's viewpoint, one which my sister echoes constantly, I reject completely the idea of a universal constant which requires an equal number of bad and good people to be born.

Unrelated comment: I love spring. All of the women come out of their wintry cocoons.

Quality Weenie exemplified on May 1, 2007 10:34 AM

But you will also have to figure into the equation nature vs nuture.

What if Dalmer was raised in a different family? Or Hitler or Cho?

Would things have turned out differently?

Graumagus exemplified on May 1, 2007 10:49 AM

It's kind of a stupid argument. Who's to say that aborting one potential Mozart didn't open up opportunities for another, better, musician to arise? Or that scraping fetal Hitler from his mother's womb didn't remove an obstacle that lets a despot who would make Hitler look like a choir boy come to power?

You can't. It's pure fantasy speculation.

I'm not backing either side of the debate here, but if either side wants their opinions to be taken seriously they should stick to facts in the existing real world rather than some possible alternate history.

Tink exemplified on May 1, 2007 03:24 PM

I don't think I am ready to play God and make those decisions. I happen to agree with Graumagus. By making those kind of choices you are opening it up for better and/or worse.

RedNeck exemplified on May 1, 2007 06:34 PM

I know what you mean 'bout "deep"... It is that kind of subject. Havin' said that, I'll trade you a Bonds for an Earnhardt. This is cool though, kinda like tradin' ball cards as a kid, except Einstein and Mozzie didn't have 'em. I think I could play that game though. Not the got game, just the tradin' game. I"d have probably put mozzie's rookie card in my spokes as a kid to make that cool motor sound on my bicycle, just like I did Mike Schmidt's.

The Humble Devildog exemplified on May 1, 2007 09:46 PM

It isn't a fair exchange at all.

Adolf Hitler is only evil when compared to someone as good as, say, Mother Theresa. Wolfgang Mozart is only good when compared to, say, David Hasselhoff. Any of those people, in a vacuum, are neither good nor bad. They just are.

"You have to take the good with the bad." It's an old saying, and it's wholly appropriate. Without evil people, good people would have nothing to be good with. Without good people, evil people would have nothing to be compared to.

It is only at the extremes of human behavior that we find anything to compare our normal behavior to.

So, no, I wouldn't exchange one single "good" person for the chance to not have any number of "bad" people.

(I wouldn't include John Kennedy on the list of "good" people, either. At the very least, he was a womanizing plagiarist who took manufactured a story of heroism to cover up his gross negligence in time of war. Doesn't count as "good" in MY book.)

Graumagus exemplified on May 2, 2007 10:28 AM

I disagree: It's been scientifically proven that David Hasselhoff is evil even in total vacuum.

physics geek exemplified on May 2, 2007 11:42 AM

From Tink: I don't think I am ready to play God...

Speak for yourself. The world would be a better place if everyone studied physics, played computer games and forsook the touch of a woman...

You know, forget that I said anything.

best western executive suite exemplified on July 27, 2007 01:15 AM

Cool site. Thanks!!!

chris craft exemplified on July 27, 2007 06:58 PM

Good site. Thank you!!!

porno exemplified on August 19, 2007 04:36 PM

Good site. Thanks!

free porno exemplified on August 20, 2007 06:22 AM

Cool site. Thank you:-)