Marcus has done something that, to me, is a deep and very personal violation. It is a fundamentally inhuman act. It is indecent.
In technical matters, we acknowledge that our ideas may not take hold. They may be misunderstood, or they may be mistaken, or they may not be relevant. When one person turns to a second and says: "I have no technical purpose for X in my system" this is a legitimate thing to say -- certainly if it turns out to be right, and even if it turns out to be wrong. But Marcus has said something very different from this. Marcus has said: I have looked very carefully at the constructor idea, and I have concluded that the only purposes that it can serve (beyond those of other mechanisms) are immoral purposes. Marcus knows very well that I have dedicated 15 years of my life to building an architecture around this concept. In matters of moral judgment, Marcus speaks carefully. Therefore, he is also saying -- purposefully and intentionally -- "Everything that you (Jonathan) have worked to build in the last 15 years is immoral." Now it is possible that Marcus is correct. Marcus does not say a thing like this without giving it very careful thought. He is a serious and deliberate man when it comes to making moral judgments, and he is careful in his thinking. So I must conclude that if he has reached the point where he will say this thing out loud, he is serious about it. Also, it is possible that he is correct, and I must be prepared to give his statement and his rationale serious attention and consideration. Also, he understands that he is making a very personal judgment of about me. It is reasonable and proper to demand that if he makes this judgment in public, he should be prepared to either substantiate or retract the judgment. But Marcus does NOT substantiate this. He says, instead, "I have a careful argument that I am not yet prepared to discuss." A decent man does not turn to a second man and say "Most of what you have worked toward in your professional life has been in the service of immoral objectives, and I am not prepared to tell you why, and I thereby deprive you of the right to examine for yourself whether it is in fact immoral." This is simply not decent behavior. It is very much like stealing a man's soul. It would be kinder, on the whole, for Marcus to shoot me. A decent man does not guest in a second man's house, eat his food, occupy time that cannot be regained, accept the benefit of extensive advice, time, and support, and then say to that second man "you're work is evil" without the human decency and compassion of a full and complete explanation. To do so is a violation of all that is decent and moral between men. When theologians discuss a moral problem, there is a formula that they start with (in some variant) in almost every religion: "Friends, let us struggle together with this problem." There is a reason for this: in the important debates of morals, people do not debate casually. They debate because each of them believes something passionately. Passionate men act according to their beliefs. In consequence, any such discussion is likely to have the outcome (a) that one person concludes they are in error, and (b) that in consequence many of the actions that have been very important to them have been misdirected or actively wrong. The importance of the opening formula is that the parties agree to investigate this matter together, each in support of the other, each recognizing that the other is human and that *if* they have acted wrongly they will require support and help. One does not turn to the other in judgment and say "you have acted immorally and I will neither explain nor permit you to evaluate." Marcus: I do not ask that you change your values. I may not agree with the one part that I understand, but I strongly defend your right to your beliefs. However, I believe that you owe me a profound apology for the way in which you have approached this discussion. I also believe that you owe me (and everyone) the courtesy of a full and immediate explanation of your reasoning. And let me attempt to save you some time. I know that you believe that "digital information property" is a bad idea. From your comments, I have the impression that you believe this type of property is immoral. If so, it would naturally follow that any technical means supporting digital property runs the risk of immoral applications. If this is the source of your fundamental objection to the morality of the constructor, then simply say so, and we can turn our attention to (a) whether there are compelling use cases, and (b) whether the design can be made to serve your goals with a less dramatic change. Regardless, I am deeply offended and hurt by your approach to this discussion. Jonathan _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
