You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Jack comments on Knox and Sollecito freed - Less Wrong Discussion

26 Post author: komponisto 03 October 2011 08:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (114)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 04 October 2011 01:49:05AM *  11 points [-]

I'm curious. Have you ever lost a loved one due to someone else's actions? The closest experience I have to this is a cousin who was killed about a year ago by a speeding driver. My cousin Brandon wasn't that old. He hadn't been a great student in highschool but had really shaped up and become a lot more responsible in college. Brandon was working to become a chef, something he was clearly good at and clearly enjoyed. My cousin was on his bike and never even saw the car. He had on a helmet. It saved his life, for a few days. His grandmother, my aunt, was on an airplane flight when the accident happened. She was on her way to the funeral of another relative who had killed himself. She found out about the accident as her plane taxied to the gate.

At first, after a few days in the hospital it seemed that Brandon was going to make it. Then he took a sudden turn for the worst and his organs started to fail. The end was so sudden that some of my relatives saw in their inboxes the email update saying that Brandon wasn't like to make it right under the email saying he had died.

Then, it turned out that the driver of the car had a history of speeding problems. He received in a year in jail for vehicular homicide. A small compensation for the entire life Brandon had in front of him.

If someone came up to me, and gave me the choice of making that driver die a slow painful, agonizing death I'd probably say yes. It would be wrong. Deeply wrong. But the emotion is that strong; I don't know if I could override it.

But I can still understand that that's wrong. The driver was an aging Vietnam vet with a history of medical problems. He had little family. He was so distraught over what happened that when initially put in jail before the trial, there was worry that he might kill himself. He seems to be an old, lonely, broken man. Harming him accomplishes little. And yet, despite all that, the desire to see him suffer still burns deeply within me.

How much more would I feel if I thought that someone had killed a relative, or even my own child? And if the court had repeatedly agreed and told me that that was the guilty person. How could I ever emotionally acknowledge that I had been after the wrong person, that not only had I persecuted the wrong person, but the person who had done this terrible deed was still out there, and free? I'd like to believe that I'm a rational person so that I could make that acknowledgment. But the fact that even when it is just a cousin I still deeply desire someone to suffer in ways that help no one at all... I doubt I could do it.

To call the Kerchers evil or their desires evil is a deep failure of empathy.

Comment author: Crux 04 October 2011 02:11:04AM 0 points [-]

Have you given up trying to get these kinds of emotions to fall in line with your conscious beliefs? Perhaps the Kerchers aren't evil, but are simply irrational and incompetent in this respect.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 04 October 2011 02:24:57AM *  7 points [-]

Have you given up trying to get these kinds of emotions to fall in line with your conscious beliefs? Perhaps the Kerchers aren't evil, but are simply irrational and incompetent in this respect.

No, I'd like these feelings to go away. And I tried to learn more about the life of the driver as an effort to lessen those feelings. But I have a lot of advantages over the Kerchers. I don't have any doubt that the driver had a year long prison sentence and will never have a license ever again. I have only an emotional problem. The Kerchers have a much deeper emotional problem that also distorts their epistemology. That's a much tougher situation to be in.

The Kerchers are being irrational and incompetent, but it is a degree of irrationality and incompetence that I'd expect to apply to most humans in similar situations. And there's a very big difference between "evil" and just "irrational and incometent." It is I think a difference that is worth appreciating.

Comment author: Crux 04 October 2011 03:02:45AM 0 points [-]

Upvoted.

Comment author: Crux 04 October 2011 03:25:15AM *  4 points [-]

Anybody care to explain the 2 down-votes? I was trying to figure out how to show that I read it but wasn't planning on responding further, and I figured that signalling my appreciation for his response would be an adequate way in this circumstance. Perhaps not though.

It tends to frustrate me when I'm waiting for a response and can't figure out whether (1) they aren't planning on one, or (2) they're just taking a while. This is one of my first attempts to get some practice saving people from that annoyance, but apparently it didn't go very well.

Explanations on why this was down-voted, or suggestions on a better way to go about this next time, would be appreciated.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 04 October 2011 03:28:16AM *  3 points [-]

I suspect that a comment that had some minimal comment other than just an upvote note might have been better received. Examples would be something like "I understand your position. Upvoted." or just "That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying." Although I did make a comment that was almost identical to the second one a while ago that got downvoted.

Edit: See for example this comment by Pedanterrific which seems to have been intended to have a similar goal set.

Comment author: Crux 04 October 2011 04:12:44AM 2 points [-]

Thanks. I guess a possible reason why it wasn't well-received was because maybe it read as "Hopefully he'll trade rep with me =D" or something. Perhaps any upvote declaration would suffer from that, but especially one that doesn't have any other content to distract from it or warrant an upvote on its own.

Comment author: pedanterrific 04 October 2011 04:22:39AM 4 points [-]

Something like that. A post just saying 'upvote' seemed astonishingly pointless to me, and thus "the sort of thing I would prefer to see less of on Less Wrong", but your explanation was perfectly satisfactory so I reversed my vote (down to up).

I find this sort of thing happens a lot- the first couple downvotes can usually be mitigated by a clarifying edit.