Re: Dijkstra's Methodology for Secure Systems Development

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:11:33 +0200
> 
> > Use the words I suggested, and this problem disappears, even if others
> > remain.
> 
> Well, that's false.  Many people think it's amoral to be homosexual.
> And many countries' laws forbid it, too.

Yes, and the Swiss think it's amoral to litter.  So what?  How is this
related to the issues at hand?

Are there countries that have laws that allow to freely kill, or break
into other's houses, or summarily hold people in captivity and torture
them?  No, there aren't.  So, for the purpose of this discussion, we
all agree what is mormal and what is not.

> >> (Except for laws, though I'm confused on how they're relevant at
> >> all.)
> >
> > Perhaps you don't understand why we have laws, then.
> 
> I said that because laws are just the written down form of what a group
> of people think is right.

Yes, but why do we bother to have laws at all?  Think about this, and
perhaps you will arrive at a much more useful explanation for why we
have laws.

> > Tell me: when someone shoots a burglar who broke into their house and
> > threatened them with a weapon, what exactly happens to the "human
> > well-being" of the burglar?
> 
> It's traded off for the well-being of the home owner, and probably for
> the well-being of future possible victims.  "Ethics calculus." ;-)

Right, and Stalin "traded off" well-being of his victims for that of
himself and his satraps.  And Hitler "traded off" the well-being of
Jews for that of the Aryans.  Your "well-being" methodology is a dead
end: using it, you will never be able to decide whom to support and
whom to condemn in a given conflict.

> Anyway, I now suspect that the discussion might go on for dozens of
> mails if we don't just abruptly stop; I had previously hoped that we
> would instead quickly either agree or agree to disagree on clear points.
> Or maybe we can just agree to disagree on the meaning and importance of
> laws?  The other points seem cleared up, I think.  I'm desperately
> looking for a way to end the discussion without requiring either side to
> accept giving the other the "last word," so help me a little...

OK, I will now stop.