powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers) (08/08/85)
Just a word about the use of the word "justification". Sentences such as "Can you justify that?" or "Is that justifiable?" are not complete (not in the grammatical sense) sentences. More explicitly, they are not complete thoughts. These sentences have to be modified to read "Can you justify that under the Code of Hammurabi?" or "Is that justifiable by Islamic law?". Of course, the people that use this type of reasoning mean something like "Is that justifiable by the kinds of rules that I, and hopefully you, use?" The point is that some system of rules must be specified. This being done, if the rules are carefully defined, arguement can begin. Without a specific set of rules that we all agree upon, we can get no where. Every action from the extermination of European Jewry to the keeping of slaves has been justified. The interesting point is that were we Germans living in the 1930's or Southerners living in the 1820's, a vast majority of us would have found these actions justifiable, whereas today none of us would. The question of whether abortion is justifiable has to be examined in this light. If we are truely interested in understanding any issue, we have to be especially sensitive to the prejudices and assumptions implicit in our use of words. Words are walls which limit our field of view. Ideas are housed in words and are similarly constrained. That is all, Bill Powers.
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy ) (08/12/85)
In article <1056@noscvax.UUCP> powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers) writes: >Just a word about the use of the word "justification". > >explicitly, they are not complete thoughts. These sentences have to >be modified to read "Can you justify that under the Code of >Hammurabi?" or "Is that justifiable by Islamic law?". > >The point is that some system of rules must be specified. This being > >we have to be especially sensitive to the prejudices and assumptions >implicit in our use of words. Words are walls which limit our field >of view. Ideas are housed in words and are similarly constrained. > >That is all, Bill Powers. This explains why there is so much heat and so litle real communication that goes on here. People tend to mix up different codes when they argue their points. richard foy