<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 10 May 2012 14:17, Jason Irwin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jasonirwin73@gmail.com" target="_blank">jasonirwin73@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 10/05/12 13:28, David Aldred wrote:<br>
> Hmm. Infrequent drivers pay for<br>
> very little fuel, and are overrepresented in third party costs (as they<br>
> tend to hit things due to lack of familiarity). People with the latest<br>
> cars - the rich, generally - pay less (per mile) as their<br>
> fuel consumption is lower - the poor are taxed more.<br>
</div>I know it's not perfect but why does that me we /must/ default to<br>
surveillance? Are we so bereft of innovation and creativity that we<br>
need the dead-hand of a machine to watch us?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Arguably, that's the point of law - define what is acceptable to society, and define a process for when the unacceptable happens. Law is there to take away the personal - to replace revenge and violence; by its nature it is impersonal. Imposing nan impersonal law by an impersonal machine does risk taking the essential humanity out of it, though. </div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
> Of course, underlying this is the bigger question, of how society works<br>
> without any real common basis of morality and hence any common<br>
> acceptance of standards and regulation, but that's one for the<br>
> secularists to explain, not me.<br>
</div>Hmm...I think that as rational humans beings (ignoring the outliers) we<br>
actually do have a common basis of morality. Sure, manners and common<br>
practice may differ from place-to-place but "Don't be a sod and treat<br>
others as I wish to be treated" is pretty universal. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yeah, but it's got no reason to be universal. That's what I mean by a common *basis* - we have a limited range of shared ideas, but they fall apart in practical situations since we define things differently, have different priorities, and what we *mean* by 'don't be a sod' varies from sod to sod. </div>
<div><br></div><div>(For example, why is it that a mechanised surveillance system is somehow 'not right'? I'd say that it's because justice is a human thing, and the element of humanity is important; but then I say that because I have a conception and philosophy of humanity which is based on the experience of God and of human beings as His image. In a society which doesn't understand the experience of God and which practically at least sees human beings as highly-evolved economic units of production, that argument doesn't work; so there's no reason *not* to rely on a purely mechanical approach)</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">But now we really<br>
are getting away from the original topic.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div> Indeed. But it can be fun :-)</div><div><br></div><div>David </div><div><br></div></div>