|
Title: The Justification of Theodore Kaczynski (The Unabomber) (Part II of II) View count: 152 Rating: 5.0 (1 ratings) Description: The audio to this video has been removed by WMG. Click on the following link to watch Part II on Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/7563943 But, as the "technical-industrial system" becomes more advanced, and begins to take more definitive shape―. being ultimately realized in the physical world, and thereby departing from mere conjecture and theory―. , it will, consequently, be more readily understood by the masses. And, therefore, it will only be in the future, when a considerable percentage of the masses can, not only begin understand, but, indeed, even convince themselves that there is a relative flaw within the workings of the technical-industrial system―. a flaw that will deliver more harm than good to humanity―. , when more battles will begin to be waged. But, as long as the system remains in a nascent―or even an adolescent―stage; it will naturally be all the more difficult for the masses to comprehend. Now, in spite of these strange prognostications, I can readily assure my reader (if one should think me overly sympathetic) that I am personally far too infirm, and, indeed, even far too disinclined to ever personally partake in such a singular war. Though it may be true that I sympathise with the underdog, it does not necessarily follow that I share in his ideology. But, to proceed: there are naturally those who will argue, "It is my conviction that Kaczynski was wrong. Indeed, I am rather convinced that the products of the technical-industrial system―. that is to say, an advanced materia medica, supercomputers, etc.―will most assuredly save, and not destroy, humankind. Yes! It will grant our progeny a more hopeful future, and mankind itself an opportunity to outlive this very planet!" Now, if such should prove to be the case―. that is to say, if mankind is eventually saved by technology―. then any sensible teleologist must, of necessity, concede to the claim that the actions of Kaczynski were unjustifiable―. even in spite of them having been committed with "good intentions." However, it will not be until that time (which will, most assuredly, be in the very remote future; when mankind is nestling soundly in the cradle of an "infallible system") that a teleologist can even begin to ponder the claim that his actions were unjustifiable. On the other hand, however, if, some two-hundred years hence, our progeny are wandering in a post-apocalyptic landscape―. starving, and weeping like babes, amidst the smog of a Hadean fallout―., I can, with some comparative certainty, assure my reader that one of those miserable wretches will very likely cry, "Oh! We should have listened to that madman, Kaczynski! He was right!―the madman was right!" And, it will only be in such a case that the actions of Dr Kaczynski would, indeed, be subjectively justified from the perspective of an ethical teleologist. For, insofar as it is a virtual maxim of the Utilitarian that "it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive," it should therefore follow that no sensible utilitarian would deny that: the death of three is but a small price to pay for the very perpetuation of mankind. Thus, in view of it being plausible that either (1) the freedoms of mankind could be marginalised by technology, or (2) mankind itself could be ultimately destroyed by technology; it should therefore hold that, if either of these two contingencies are eventually realised sometime in the very remote future, that the actions of Kaczynski will be ultimately justified from a teleological perspective. Thus, insofar as there is a potential justification for the "crimes" of Dr Kaczynski, I therefore believe it to be quite "unjustifiable" for any non-deontologist to lump this individual into the "psychopathic serial killer" category. For, the crimes of the genuine serial killer simply cannot boast any "potential justification"―. that is to say, no matter how much time should pass, the crimes of Ed Gein, Theodore Bundy, etc. may never be justified through the lens of any respectable, ethical system. In conclusion, though Dr Kaczynski's enemy may have been rather more alien, and more abstruse, than a redskin with a tomahawk, or a redcoat with a musket; it is ultimately quite absurd for one to consider his revolutionary argumenta to be sheer madness, and his enemy, little more than a phantom. All of these claims seem to raise the question: "should self-defence be restricted to direct attacks, or is a man not also free to defend himself against insidious and, sometimes, more nefarious attacks? If so, what should, or should not, qualify as self-defence in the event of an indirect attack?" Tags: theodore, ted, kaczynski, the, unabomber, transhumanism, post-humanism, futurism, philosophy, teleology, ethics, ethical, terrorism, bombing, Author: fcrispus |
