marco@andromeda.UUCP (08/09/86)
In article <877@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, rat@tybalt.caltech.edu.Caltech.Edu@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Ray Trent) writes: > In article <509@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU> marco@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU (the wharf rat) writes: > >The very fact that *ALL THIS IS YOUR OR MINE OR WHOMEVER'S OPINION* IS > >THE VERY REASON WE **SHOULD NOT PASS LAWS** ABOUT IT. > > How does it follow from "X is a matter of opinion" that "we should not > pass laws about X"? Hint: it doesn't. Since laws function to restrict the actions of others, they should be based on logic, not religon, intuition, opinion, or any other garbage. An opinion is an "stronger than impression, but less strong than positive knowledge". Laws should be limited to the reality of positive knowledge, not based on someone's half-assed guess about truth. Since no opinion is more true than another, there can be no basis for passing laws based on opinions. Just think of all the opinions you'd hate to see made law. The above is why they should never be. Your reasoning is the reason so many of them are. Down with half-baked opinions masquerading as truth!, the wharf rat In *my* opinion, it's *not* killing a baby.
rat@tybalt.caltech.edu.Caltech.Edu (Ray Trent) (08/11/86)
Sender: In article <524@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU> marco@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU () writes: >In article <877@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, (I, Paul Torek) wrote: >> How does it follow from "X is a matter of opinion" that "we should not >> pass laws about X"? Hint: it doesn't. > > Since laws function to restrict the actions of others, they should >be based on logic, not religon, intuition, opinion, or any other garbage. >[..]. Laws should be limited to the reality of positive knowledge, >not based on someone's half-assed guess about truth. Since no opinion is >more true than another, there can be no basis for passing laws based on >opinions. Just think of all the opinions you'd hate to see made law. The >above is why they should never be. Your reasoning is the reason so many of >them are. If it is a matter of opinion that (the moral equivalent of an adult) human life begins at time t, then it is equally a matter of opinion that it doesn't. So if we can't make laws based on opinion, what, pray tell, are we supposed to vote for? "Easy," I hear the audience thinking, "just vote for the side that wants to leave the law out of the issue." Sorry, not possible, at least not without a drastic change in our legal structure. Question: suppose pro-lifers want to picket an abortion clinic forcibly preventing anyone from entering. Or suppose they want to destroy the clinic's equipment. (Not-so-hypothetical questions, eh?) Do you want our legal system to stop them? Aha ... If so, you are giving your opinion the force of law! And I haven't even gotten into the problems about beginning at t versus beginning at t+epsilon, and how opinion grades off into knowledge (or does it?). P.S. Does anybody pay attention to the "References:" line in headers? If not, I'm going to get rid of mine. Paul Torek, not necessarily reflecting the views of: rat@tybalt.caltech.edu