Freedom, Robotics, and the Casualties of Uncritical Thought.
Throughout the course of this blog, we have discussed ways in which our thought processes can be rewired to gradually free us from subjective and passive thoughts, impressions and gut reactions, fallacious debate tactics and poorly formed arguments, as well as manipulations and outright lies. Obviously, it is up to the individual whether or not to utilize the tools of critical thinking and let the shackles of the mind fall with grace.
After all, people are free to believe whatever they choose…
But the next sentence I type is going to be a profoundly controversial one.
Should people really be free to believe whatever they want? Is it possible that the freedom of thought should come with an asterisk next to its entry in the rulebook of life?
Before you call the Thought Police (ironic, no?) for me expressing mine, let’s explore the idea…
By the drafters of the US Constitution, we have been provided with three succinct and inalienable rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. While this list is far from exhaustive, let’s call it a good rough draft.
We are each free to pursue happiness in whatever shape or form that it might represent to us.
However, from a deontological ethical standpoint, we as individuals (as well as society as a whole) have certain duties as a result of possessing the faculties of logic and reason. In the pursuit of our own happiness, we have the duty to not infringe on the ability of others to pursue their own happiness, for to do so would be morally wrong (Kant’s Categorical Imperative).
If Andrew derives pleasure from killing people, is he free to pursue happiness at the expense of others? Of course not. Andrew is free to pursue happiness.*
*as long as in doing so, he is not depriving others of doing the same.
The Founding Fathers of our country also provided us with the Bill of Rights. As a result of several Supreme Court rulings, many of these rights also contain asterisks next to their headings. Probably the most famous of these is the freedom of speech, encapsulated within the First Amendment. You, as an individual, are free to speak, write, and publish as you desire — with a few caveats. You can not do so if what you are saying or writing will cause damage or harm to others. You can not commit libel, defame, slander, or harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group… etc.
Under certain circumstances, the Utilitarian theory of ethics (founded by Jeremy Bentham) is used to justify sacrificing the rights of an individual for the betterment of a larger group. Utilitarian ethics is concerned with maximizing positive outcomes and minimizing negative ones. Denying freedom of speech to an individual who would exercise that freedom in the form of shouting, “FIRE!” in a crowded theater is justified by utilitarian ethics. The panic, chaos, injury, and death that might ensue — and have ensued — from such situations is justification to deny the right to the individual.
Let’s go off on a slight tangent for a moment…
If we are willing to extrapolate, Isaac Asimov put this concept in slightly different terms when he immortalized The Three Laws of Robotics in his short story, “Runaround” from his collection I, Robot.
Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics are as follow:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Clearly, we are not robots. But there is definitely something to be taken away from these laws. In an ideal world, humans would follow a similar code of ethics. Replace a few key words in Asimov’s Laws and voila! Allow me to present the Three Laws of Humanity:
- A human may not injure another human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A human may obey directions given by other humans, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A human is free to protect its own existence, enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as long as the expression of such freedoms does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Obviously, this is idealistic. However, If you are an advocate of totally unrestricted freedoms, you must also be an advocate of lawlessness and anarchy. The rest of us who wish to escape the entropy of nature and create a better society for all recognize that certain rights must be, under certain circumstances, given up for the good of the rest of humanity.
And now, we arrive at the freedom of thought…
An individual should be free to think and believe whatever they see fit (as an extension of their pursuit of happiness), as long as the expression of such a freedom does not allow another human being to come to harm.
What sorts of irrational and uncritical thoughts can cause harm?
Let us ask Timothy and Sarah Johnson of Plymouth, Minnesota…
Timothy and Sarah Johnson were charged earlier this year with child neglect over the death of their seven-year-old son, Seth. Like just about everyone else in America, the Johnsons have the freedom to believe whatever they want to. In this case, the Johnsons believed that through prayer alone they could heal their son. Self-diagnosing him with post-traumatic disorder, a brain injury, and fetal alcohol syndrome, the Johnsons set about praying their son back to good health. Seth died of pancreatitis and acute sepsis without having ever received medical treatment.
Through the exercise of their freedom of thought/belief, which amounted to child abuse, the Johnsons allowed their son to come to harm.
This is not uncommon.
Herbert and Catherine Schaible were members of Philadelphia’s First Century Gospel Church (remember the name of the church… it will be back in just a minute). As is their right, Herbert and Catherine believed that responsibility for health, healing, protection, and provisions should belong solely to their almighty god.
As small children have the tendency to do, the Schaible’s two-year-old son, Kent Schaible, was stricken with illness. Kent developed a swollen throat, congested lungs, and persistent diarrhea. Herbert and Catherine, as well as the other members of their church set about trying to heal young Kent through prayer alone. Ten days later, Kent died of bacterial pneumonia — a condition that is easily treated and cured with today’s modern medicine.
The parents were not charged with murder in any of its degrees… Yet.
In April of 2013, the Schaibles again made headlines when their eight-month-old son Brandon died… of bacterial pneumonia. Thankfully, when the Schaibles’ freedom of belief claimed a second life, they were sentenced to seven years in prison.
However, if the Schaibles had lived in Arkansas, Idao, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, or Wisconsin, they would be free to allow any and all of their future children to die from any number of perfectly curable illnesses so long as they said they were doing it for reasons based on religious belief.
And now back to the church…
The church the Schaibles belonged to, as well as the Faith Tabernacle Congregation in Philadelphia, had run into trouble like this before. In 1991, hundreds of children in both churches contracted measles because their ideologically-driven parents refused to vaccinate their children. Of the hundreds of children infected, nine died.
Again, an individual should be free to think and believe whatever they see fit (as an extension of their pursuit of happiness), as long as the expression of such a freedom does not allow another human being to come to harm.
The Johnsons and the Schaibles, The First Century Gospel Church, Faith Tabernacle Congregation, and 19 of our 50 United, twenty-first century, States of America don’t seem to understand. If you shouldn’t shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, you shouldn’t be permitted to simply shout “prayer” at a dying child. We are better than this.
Moving on…
If the manifestation of your freedom of thought consists of intimidation, hate-speech, “rallies” of racial superiority, threats of physical violence, and actual violence, you likewise shouldn’t have protection under the law. You are attempting to deprive others of their own rights and their own pursuit of happiness and, furthermore, you are possibly causing and/or inspiring others to cause harm to them.
Let’s take a look at another manifestation of the way our freedom of thought can cause others to come to harm. The next example, in the wake of two more mass shootings, is a particularly relevant one.
“Our thoughts and prayers…”
It seems that the only action taken when a person of Europoid ancestry shoots and kills en masse a group of concert/church/school goers, is inaction. Instead or sitting down for rational discourse, we offer up our “thoughts and prayers” to the Twitter gods. Does this way of thinking really bring aid to those who are grieving? Or does it just rub salt in the open wound of avoidable loss?
I won’t mince words here: I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment. I’m not an advocate of the ever-feared “gun grab” or the less threateningly worded “gun buyback.” However, in the case of every single mass shooting in US history, our lax gun laws have allowed a mentally disturbed person or persons to acquire firearms. Thinking that “thoughts and prayers” are going to be a solution to a very serious problem is magical thinking of the highest caliber and is allowing people to come to harm to the tune of thousands of people per year.
The proper reaction to such tragedy is not a shoulder-shrug accompanied by the pseudo-emotional compulsory 140 characters. A more logical reaction would involve a discussion of the legal circumstances that exist that have allowed derranged individuals to acquire the means to kill dozens of people at a time (gun show loopholes, lack of background checks and mental health evaluations, non-compulsory safety courses and licensure, etc.) Or, if you prefer, perhaps a serious discussion can be had about how a person who was on psychoactive drugs was able to obtain firearms. The responsible way of thinking is not “thoughts and prayers.” By issuing such a passive and impotent statement, we — along with our political “leaders” — are suggesting that such atrocities are the inevitable casualties of the Right to keep and bear arms. This type of thinking is unacceptable. To say that such thinking shouldn’t be allowed is a bit of a stretch, but to insist that it isn’t admissible in rational discussion is perhaps a more critical approach.
Consider these additional freedoms and their attached strings:
Our freedom to own and operate an automobile is amended with the clause that we won’t do so without the proper licensure, that we won’t do it impaired, that we will wear the appropriate restraint devices and travel at the appropriate speeds, and that we will secure adequate insurance to protect ourselves and others prior to doing so. The vehicle that we drive shall be registered and kept inspected to ensure safe operating parameters. Extrapolate as you may.
Our freedom to imbibe what is potentially a deadly, mind altering drug, is modified by the requirement that we do so safely, privately, and once a sufficient age and level of mental development has been reached.
We have the freedom to smoke tobacco. It is required that we do so in areas that do not force it and its harmful health effects on others.
We have the freedom to own property. Doing so carries with it the responsibility of contributing to the community through school and property taxes. If you derive the value and utility of owning a home that is connected to power and water that is maintained publicly, it is your responsibility to pay it back, if not forward.
We have the freedom to work, and to earn compensation for our work. As beneficiaries of the structure of society, we enter into an implicit social contract to help maintain society; to pay society back in proportion to our derived benefit from our participation in it. The taxation on wages provide police, firemen, military, roads on which to commute, clean water, town and national parks, medicine, social security for our elderly, and education for those who would like to one day become part of the future workforce.
Now that you think about it, very few freedoms come without strings attached. In exercising our freedoms, we must do it in a way that does not bring harm to those around us with which we have agreed to form a society for the betterment of all. Our freedom to believe whatever we want is — or at least should be — no exception. Under circumstances that could cause, inspire, or allow harm to come to others — just as with all other freedoms — our freedom of thought/belief should be amended.
As the upright thinkers of the animal kingdom, we have the faculty of logic and reason. With these faculties, according to Kant, comes the duty to wield them wisely, and ethically. America prides itself on being a free country, but there is no such thing as absolute freedom when you choose to live with one another in society. We have the freedom to form our own beliefs and ideas, but this freedom is perhaps the most potent of all and should not be taken lightly. It, too, should not be without caveat. You don’t get to just think and believe whatever you want without cause and due diligence. It is imperative that we as individuals go to extreme measures to see to it that our beliefs are informed by logic, reason, fact, and the evidence of reality.
Anything less will be disastrous…
