wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (09/02/83)
From Tom Craver:
If you read your second note to me in the "Plato" series, I
think you will find that you were already "flaming".
No, that was exasperation. I don't get angry until someone starts twisting
what I had to say. Since you insist, I'll cover it point by point.
... the obvious implication is that I am hypocritically
trying to avoid admitting a mistake.
Hypocritical is your word. I don't think you're being hypocritical, just
stubborn. There has been a simple question posed (How can this not be a
case of rationality in conflict with morality), which you continually don't
answer. The correct term is "evade." I withdraw "weasel," as a similar word
written in anger. My apologies.
And at what point did I accuse you of supporting murder?
In the title to your note, and at the close, where you spoke sarcatically of
the "rational murder" you think I'm advocating. In point of fact, I have
already said that I agreed with Plato on the immorality of murder.
You claim that I ignored some of your note, while saying that you
did not repond to my main point. I stand by that claim, which I
gave clear evidence for, and would like to ask you exactly which
major point I "ignored". I certainly did not intend to do so.
See the question posed above (in parentheses). If I failed to respond to
your main point I apologize and ask you to re-state it. Due to the my
impending move to UPenn, all my records have been deleted.
[the indentation is going to get hairy if I keep on indenting; I'll just put
the speaker's name before each paragraph where it changes.]
[TC]
As for my "twisting your words", lets look at the evidence - what you said,
and how I then rephrased the "Plato" problem.
--------------
You said, in your rebuttal note, "Who said anything about A being irrational?
All I said was that he was angry, and he need not be even that. He might
have worked out his anger before visiting B."
I said "A comes to B's house, perfectly rational, having worked out his
anger on the way over, and asks for his sword back. ("Hi, nice day, mind
if I ask for my sword back? - I just want to kill my wife and her lover.")
So far, this seems to be, though perhaps sarcastic, in line with what you
said.
[AW]
It would have been fine without the paranthetic comment, which is misleading.
It implies that A is somehow irrational (something you take for granted).
Additionally, it implies that A does not regard this as serious. Both are
serious points against him, if they are true.
[TC]
I would like to add, here, that I cannot understand how you think
that someone could rationally *murder* another human being, which is the
implication of saying that A is not irrational, yet would commit the murders.
[AW]
As has been said before (with my records gone, I can't remember the man's name),
mob bosses do this all the time. Governments (specifically the people who make
up governments) do it all the time. I maintain that every person who owns a
gun has already planned to murder someone. Otherwise, why own the gun?
You said "B may not know A's wife, or her lover? Why should he (selfishly)
care?"
[TC]
I said "B doesnt know either of them, so this somehow makes it ok for him
to sanction their murder. ("Who? Never heard of them. Have fun!")"
Again, sarcastic, but, I think, accurate.
[AW]
No. Not accurate. What I said was "B doesn't know either of them (this is to
avoid personal involvement, which might bias rationality)" (Or words to that
effect.) You twist (yes, I stand by that word) this into B somehow okaying
the murders. That is completely your idea.
[TC]
You said "Who said anything about him being mad? He might be more than
just mad; he might attack or kill B."
I said "A either wont get mad, or will get so mad as to attack to kill
B. (with his bare hands, against a man with a sword? Well, OK.)"
[AW]
Again you twist: Nothing is said about B holding the sword. Also, you change
"attack OR kill" into "attack TO kill." Also, you make it seem like A will
instantly attack B if B doesn'thand over the sword. If you had put my quote
in context, you would see that it was a reply to your query about what sort
of consequences might befall B. In its full context, this is a reasonable
statement on my part.
[TC]
You said "Who said anything about A getting into trouble? If he's careful,
he might get away with it. Also, don't forget that to the Greeks, women
were ... considered as legal property. A's trouble is something that you
are inventing to get you out of the problem."
I said "After A goes merrily off and kills the wife and lover, he will
get away with it, because wives were property back then." Here, I seem
to have missed the fact that you meant he might get away with it some
other way. However, A's not getting in trouble is not the most important
selfish factor involved, so I am willing to allow that he *might* get away
with it, so far as the rest of society goes, but not as far as B is concerned.
I assume here that B knows of A's intention.
[AW]
This is essentially correct, once your explanation is added in. The only thing
thta puzzles me is what is the relevance of B's knowledge. Yes, B knows A's
intentions. If he didn't, there would be no moral dilemma.
[TC]
You said "You could (selfishly) give him the sword, and then (selfishly)
stop being friends with him, because as a rational person, you don't want
a murder for a friend."
I said "And B can then drop him as a friend, after the fact, with no
selfish loss."
[AW]
This was prompted by your original statement that B would not give the sword
to A "because he wouldn't want his friend to be a murderer." I am of the
opinion that this idea is just wrong on the face of it. Your reason is no
reason at all. In order to point this out, I suggested that once A had
become a murderer, the selfish/rational thing for B to do is to stop being
his friend, avoiding your problem of having a murderer for a friend. I
should have indicated my sarcasm in the original. Sorry.
And I guess I ought to apologize for flaming. My forcefullness was
unwarranted. It takes a lot to get me annoyed, and when I finally blow,
I may overdo it. My apologies. I shall endeavor to tone down.
--Alan Wexelblat
(after 9/12:ucbvax!wex.UPenn@UDel-Relay)