Ok, now we are getting somewhere.
First, on morality. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Kaczynski’s actions are morally sound because he is fighting evil (i.e. the tech system), and fighting evil is good. It is ok to harm those who do evil and promote evil, and even certain amounts of collateral damage are acceptable in this fight. I hope I’ve understood your argument correctly.
There are many questions here:
1) Is the tech-system evil? Why? How can we determine that?
2) Is it morally justifiable to kill distinct individuals for participating in a broad and diffuse and abstract evil that is the “system” in general? That is, you’re doing specific and ultimate harm to people who contribute in some tiny way to something bad. Is that just and proportional?
3) Are you justified in killing people by the same token? Why aren’t you? Does that make you part of the problem?
On the first set of questions, it will be hard to come to any kind of agreement if we don’t agree on some standard of measure. It seems that human well-being is a standard of measure that Kaczynski applies himself, so perhaps you are also willing to apply it. Let us take well-being then as the yardstick for determining whether technological society is bad. What factors go into well-being?
If you ask around, I think you will reach pretty good consensus on what kinds of things constitute well-being: the ability to live, eat, have shelter, be reasonably safe, comfortable, healthy, live long and prosperously, have the ability to pursue your own goals and desires, to be of good mental health, etc.
Ask a sick person what constitutes an improvement in well-being, he will say it is to be healthy. Ask a cold person, and they will ask for warmth, etc.
Is it then fair to say that an improvement in these factors constitutes an improvement in well-being? I think it is.
What’s more, these are not subjective, or relative factors. These are, for the most part, physical facts. Disease and sickness have physical causes, mental illness has physical causes, being cold, starving, etc., are measurable, and universal things. Therefore, by extension, well-being is measurable and a universal thing that has physical causes.
Therefore, we can objectively state that some physical states of affairs are objectively, morally better than others, since they cause larger well-being, and since we agreed that well-being is the measure of morality.
This is, roughly, Sam Harris’ argument.
Ok, so then we should be able to objectively answer whether industrial society is morally evil on the whole. What are the pro’s:
a) Safety
b) Shelter
c) Health and life expectancy
d) Relative non-violence
e) Abundant food
f) Digital watches…
What are the con’s? In Kaczynski’s view, he claims that:
1) It has an adverse effect on mental health
2) It limits autonomy and freedom
Question is, how do we stack these up against each other? I would suggest that the pro’s outweigh the cons, even if Kaczynski is right (which I don’t think he is, necessarily).
The reason I say this, especially with regard to mental health, is that mental health exists on a spectrum, while many of the downsides of tribal life don’t. You either have enough food, or you’re starving. You either have peace or you get killed, you either are comfortable, or you’re freezing. You either have intestinal parasites that will kill you, or you don’t. Everything is more absolute.
Having general anxiety, or suffering from depression isn’t great, but it is, for the most part, in most people, something that can be tolerated. People do commit suicide, and they do suffer greatly in some cases, but for the most part, these stresses are inconveniences, not death sentences. Therefore, I would say that “being miserable” in a mental kind of way, is mostly better than being miserable in a physical kind of way.
Ask yourself personally, would you rather be stressed at work every now and then, or would you rather be freezing and wet, and hungry, and hoping that the next tribe over won’t attack you while you’re sleeping? I don’t want to make any assumptions, but why are you responding to an internet argument, and not doing exactly what Kaczynski is doing? I mean, you don’t have to kill people, but why aren’t you escaping society and living in an isolated cabin that you built yourself? You’re perfectly free to do so. But it’s uncomfortable. It’s a harsh life, and that proves my point really. We’re better off in industrial society than we ever were before. Objectively.
On the second question, let us assume that industrial society is indeed evil. Does that give justification to kill those who promote it? Since “society” is an incredibly abstract entity it is almost impossible to connect specific actions with it. It’s just too vague. So, I don’t know how it can be justified, even if we agree that tech is evil. The slaveholder analogy is not good, because a specific slaveholder is doing harm to specific people. There is a clear causal connection, and thus preventing him from allowing to continue, even violently, may be morally permissible.
But what you are in essence saying is that, it is ok to kill a resident of Mississippi during slave times, because being a resident, he is complicit in the institution of slavery. That is collective guilt. This person may have never owned slaves, never even seen a slave before. Or he might think slavery is ok. But his mere being a resident or a part of a slave-holding society is too diffuse an act to be punished by death in any just way.
Thirdly, if you think Kaczynski is right to do as he did, then why aren’t you? And why are you reading online arguments? Could it be that you don’t want to take the consequences? Could it be that it would be too uncomfortable? Well then, you’re kind of implicitly making the point that your now life is better than the alternative.