dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/07/83)
It's refreshing to hear a response that really rebuts my criticisms! I did
indeed misread your purpose (and your use of the word "kill", I suppose).
And I did ignore many political complexities, and quite intentionally: when
we get to issues of a certain complexity, it usually becomes hard to say
which view is right and which is wrong. My point was to forestall anyone
from thinking, "Here's a line of argument that makes it easy to say which of
the views ("pro-life","pro-choice") is right and which wrong."
Am I a moralistic referee? I did not intend to be a referee between you and
Liz; it was certainly a (limited) defense of her view. I did intend to be a
referee in my other, longer article which appeared in net.politics (were you
referring to that?). And I am not ashamed of the extent to which I was
moralistic there: I insisted on "the ethics of controversy". (There's a
brilliant article entitled "The Ethics of Controversy", from which I
borrowed the phrase.) Also I wanted to stop the rhetoric-full,reason-bare
arguments and get people to address the hard philosophical questions, or
shut up. I am not and never claimed to be neutral; I refrained from giving
my own position for reasons of space, mainly. Although both sides would
find my view completely appalling, its consequences are considerably closer
to those of one of the two main contenders than those of the other. Can you
guess which?
--Paul Torek, U of MD College Park