laura@utcsstat.UUCP (08/12/83)
Kenneth Almquist writes:
To begin with, let me comment that for you to say that you base
all your positions on the concept of freedom tells me next to
nothing. Most moral questions can be posed in terms of
conflicting freedoms, so that the real question is how you
resolve these conflicts.
Most people have used either philosophy or theology to examine such
questions. I have (unfortunately) discovered philosophy comparatively
recently, so I cannot present a purely philosophical basis for my
beliefs. I lack the philosophical background and the understanding of
the framework in which one discusses these beliefs. Alan Wexelblat and
Paul Torek seem to be the resident philosophers (though I *know* there
are more of you reading net.philosophy!), perhaps you should move there
with this question and ask them.
I have got where i am through theology. What I personally believe I am
not willing to discuss. I do not belong to any Church, and do not
believe in an anthropomorphous deity, and I do not feel compelled to
proselytise. The only framework I have for presenting how I resolves
conflicts in freedoms in its entirity is one of a Master/student
relationship. I do not want to initiate this with anyone, since I do
not think that I would make a very satisfactory Master. I, too, am
learning.
back to you:
Let us take as an example somebody who feels like throwing a
rock off the Empire State building.
Kenneth, did you read my original article in net.flame? I had a rather
long introduction to it. In it I warned the readers that there is a
chance that what you mean when you use the word 'freedom' is
'irresponsibility'. I told you and everyone else that my definition of
freedom was not distinct from my definition of responsibility. They two
words are very synonymous to me. Perhaps I should have invented words
to use; i did consider doing so.
Anyone who is throwing rocks off the Empire State Building is being
irresponsible. He is either ignorant, or evil. I am sorry if you do not
like that last word, but I do not have a better one. There is no
question that throwing rocks off The Empire State Building is a good
way to kill someone. Ignorance can be remedied rather easily, but evil
is a lot harder. I have met extremely evil people where I am not sure
that it *can* be remedied. I intend to protect myself and others from
evil and see no conflict in doing so. If the evil person is reformable,
then I am also doing him a favour as well. I have yet to see a free
evil person, and I have read many proofs that this is impossible. Until
I see any contradictory evidence I believe this is a truth, as true as
(say) the gravitational constant.
back to you:
you would ignore the potential harm to people on the ground
because this harm might never actually occur. Therefore you
would oppose prohibiting people from throwing rocks off the
Empire State building.
No. This is not what I am saying at all. On the other hand, I have no
fundamental moral principle *against* throwing rocks off the Empire
State building. If you had a good reason to do this (say you wanted to
do this for a documentary describing WHY you SHOULD NOT throw rocks off
the Empire State building) you should clear the surrounding ground from
people so that you will not injure them.
How can you deal with the real world, which is very often
uncertain, if you limit yourself to statements that are known
to be true or false?
Like everybody else, you hope (and perhaps pray) that you are making
the right decision when there is not sufficient evidence. Do you make
hard and fast decisions when the truth is not known? How guilty must
you feel when you are wrong. Some questions are not likely to be known
for some time (Quick! Is there intelligent life on the planets which
may be orbiting around Barnard's Star?) but there are others which seem
decidable rather quickly. In the mean time, I will wait, and not pass
judgement.
Medical studies are usually based upon statistical analysis, so
you will never get a definite statement on the effects of
ambient smoke. The best a statistician can do is to say, "It
is highly probable that ambient smoke is harmful."
This is good enough for me. Actually, my father has produced some
rather definite results on the effects of various drugs on the brain,
so your statement, while true in many cases, is not true in all. All of
the effects of PCP on the brain are not known, but my father can
predict that you will hallucinate.
OK, now let's discuss the difference between a legal system and
a moral system as I use the terms.
I do not understand you whole argument very well. I will poke at the
parts that do not make sense to me in the hope that you will understand
me better.
If you prefer not to include the judges as part of the legal
system and view a legal system simply as a set of rules, fine.
I could argue either with or without the judges. For simplicity's sake
let us leave them out of it.
But you have to realize that the purpose of these rules is to
allow judges to render decisions and that these rules are only
concerned with that purpose. A moral system says that an
action is wrong, a legal system does not. I'm quite certain
that if you look up the law in Canada on stealing, you will
find that it says nothing about whether stealing is right or
wrong. It directs judges to send people to steal to jail and
Do you think that the legal system is founded without a purpose? Is it
entirely random in deciding what is a crime? Get serious. "We hold
these truths to be self-evident" is a pretty good way of saying "These
things are RIGHT and we don't even have to say WHY they are right,
because they are so OBVIOUSLY right". Note the etymology of the word
"right" (as in Bill of Rights).
The relationship between moral and legal systems stems from the
fact that, just as a moral system can pass judgement on an act
like stealing, it can also pass judgement on a legal system.
All this means is that there can be multiple moral systems. Mine (for
instance) is not the same on as the legal system. I never denied this.
Therefore, it is possible to base a legal system on a moral
system. For example, if a moral system states That stealing is
seriously wrong and that people who perform acts which are
seriously wrong should be sent to jail, then we can direct our
judicial system to send people to jail. Real legal systems,
however, are not based upon a single moral system. A society
in practice contains many different moral systems but one legal
system; therefore the legal system which actually evolves
attempts to be fairly consonant with a variety of moral
systems.
You are being silly here. A moral system which uses some aspects of
other moral systems is in no way not a moral system. Try again.
You yourself oppose the notion that everything that is not
illegal (a legal concept) is morally OK (a moral concept).
That notion is a tautology if you believe that the legal system
is a moral system; it is nonsense if you recognize that
"illegal" and "immoral" mean two different things.
i do not recognise this. I do recognise that what is termed "illegal"
may not be immoral to me, but it is immoral to somebody, and it is
usually claimed to be immoral to most people. Do not confuse my
personal morality with the laws of the land.
If you value freedom then there is a very good reason for you
to avoid proposing laws written in the form of "thou shalt not"
rather than "thou shalt." A law of the former type typically
decreases your freedom of choice by eliminating one option. A
law of the latter type eliminates all but one option and
therefore allows no individual choice whatsoever. Therefore,
while there may be exceptions, legal systems which rely heavily
on laws of the form "thou shalt" are not likely to provide a
lot of freedom.
I believe that you are contradicting yourself here. (I feel like an
ancient card reader. "Programmer error -- please repunch card and
resubmit").
Now, on to your third reason.
Societal consensus is not sufficient justification for
laws.
(Well, we have finally hit the meat of the matter.)
I agree that the majority is not always right.
I am very glad to hear this.
I suspect that you missed my point. If, as is likely, the
Ontario censor board censors films which people may freely
choose not to watch, then I agree with you. If, on the other
hand, it censors public billboards which people cannot easily
avoid viewing, there would seem to be little point the censor
board issuing 'book reviews' on the billboards.
Again, I am glad that you agree with me. How many times have you been
forced to go to a movie? Advertisement deserves its own discussion
somewhere. If you are serious about this, please present it somewhere
else, separately. People are already complaining that these news
articles are too long.
You have gotten yourself into a real tangle here.
1. If you pass a law against smoking you are declaring it
wrong. That is your interpretation of what I am saying.
Maybe I'm just passing a law without saying anything at all.
**Pfui!***
2. I do not think smoking is wrong.
**No, I do not think that there is enough evidence to prove that
smoking is harmful to non-smokers (notice, I do think that there *has*
been enough evidence to prove that smoking is harmful to smokers). this
is not semantically equivalent.
3. [Therefore, you
should not say that it is wrong.] Now you are attacking my
right to free speech, which is probably not your intention.
No, I am not attacking your right to free speech. You can say whatever
you want. I am not obligated to help you make stupid laws on the basis
of your silly beliefs, however.
This appears to be another example of the confusion which
arises when you fail to distinguish between moral and legal
systems. Why don't you talk about the effects of law? Try
starting out with, "It is immoral to punish people for
smoking."
BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THIS! I AM INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING
"Societal Consensus is not sufficient basis for Law". If *you* want to
discuss the morality of punishment, go right ahead, but this is not the
same thing at all.
The purpose of relying on precedents is to avoid remaking the
same decision over and over again. To overturn a precedent, a
judge simply decides that a prior decision was wrong. A judge
will always adhere to the ruling of a higher court because
otherwise the higher court will overturn the judge's decision
if it is being consistent. Thus the whole purpose of
precedents is to make the system more efficient.
Really, now, when you are discussing a proposed new legal system there
is no reason to stay within the limitations of the old ones. I would
just say that you have presented a proof that the purpose of presidents
is to make a legal decisions (the manifestation of the legal system)
more consistent. This says nothing about efficiency. Can you envision
a computer that can do calculus faster from general principles than I
can do with 900 'proved' theorems? (chuckle. I am lousy at Calculus
except from general principles. I forget the signs of things. If you
can think of a TRS80 with 48K, you can envision the right sort of
computer).
In the case of a law prohibiting public smoking, there would be
no need to look up lots of precedents after the first trial. I
don't think that such a law would overload the legal system.
Wrong. Murder is illegal, right? And how many murderers get smart
lawyers which get them off, or get them a reduced sentence? I expect to
see not guilty of smoking by reason of insanity, mental cruelty,
addiction <note the current policy towards convicted heroin addicts>
and a thousand tries at proving it unconstitutional. Everyone will have
their own twist as to why it is unconstitutional. Perhaps we could
survive one more law -- but can we keep doing this forever?
You don't talk about public areas here. I guess you can handle
them by avoiding public places when they are filled with
smoke. Well, it's noble of you not to want to curtail other
people with your personal decision, but what about the person
who smokes in a public place? Why should your freedom to go to
public places be curtailed by his personal decision to smoke?
Why should his freedom to smoke be curtailed by your dislike of it? The
question goes both ways. please do not cloud the issue. If individuals
who own public areas wish to set aside 'no smoking' areas I am grateful
to them. What I am opposing is LEGISLATION forcing them to do this.
Please maintain the distinction.
Perhaps you are deifying governments rather than just
considering them another example of a humans organization.
(Emphatically, no.)
Any organization, not just a government, may amass a great deal
of power. Once that happens the actions of that organization
have the potential to be very harmful (as well as very
helpful). Never the less, there is nothing inherently wrong
with a very powerful organization accomplishing a goal unless
there is something wrong with the goal or the means used to
achieve it.
Now please explain to me why curtailing the freedom of smokers is not
wrong.
Do you believe that the government has fulfilled its
obligations by informing citizens of the situation so that they
can make an informed decision as to whether or not to swim? Do
you believe that the fact that some people may find not being
able to swim objectionable is not sufficient reason to pass a
law prohibiting people from polluting the lake? If not, there
is yet hope for you.
i am glad that you think there is hope for me. i think that there is
hope for you as well. Pollution is irresponsible. By definition, there
is no 'freedom to pollute'. There is sufficient reason to prevent
people from polluting the lake. It is not 'that some people may find
not being able to swim objectionable', though. Pollution is wrong,
therefore some people object to it. It is not a reflexive
relationship.
TO EVERYONE:
recently, in net.philosophy, some people have proposed words other than
'altruism' which Tim Craver and Paul Torek could use. Does anyone have
a similar suggestion for me?
laura creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura