esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (12/08/84)
[] From: kin@laidbak.UUCP (Kin Wong) > So how do you know that the majority does not support laws the way > I do? I said the majority doesn't support them only for narrowly self-interested reasons. I have a lot of good evidence for this, based on the people I know and the news reports I've seen that show people supporting things that don't have a whole lot to do with self-interest. > ...and if passing a law reduces that probability [of injury] > without excessive infringement to what we value as "liberty", then > the majority may support such laws. "Excessive infringement" -- a moral judgement. > But personally, my own opinion is that the most harm to mankind > were done under the name of "absolute rights" and "moral truths" , > not when people are doubtful about what is "right" or "wrong". And was that harm *only subjectively* wrong? (And what makes you think I'm not doubtful about what's right or wrong? I often am -- I *can* be because I believe that *error* in moral belief is genuinely possible. Densinger et. al. do not (you heard me!).) > If I were to support such a law [that allowed *other* people to be run > down but not him], it wouldn't take a genius to see that others would > want the same ... You're evading the point: IF you COULD have a law that protected you and not others AND this did not increase the risk that others would harm you (by turning the tables on you), would you want that? Come on, admit it -- the protection of others counts as a plus to you! That's my point! > ...people have the ability to place "themselves" as "others" An ability that has a great deal to do with morality! > I am not disputing the fact that laws may be passed based on moral > grounds, but I am disputing your contention that all laws are > impositions based on moral beliefs; Then you have already conceded one of my main points, namely that "imposing morality" isn't always wrong! Granted? Perhaps you never disputed that. Anyway, the contention that you do want to dispute is, I still maintain, correct... > you have given me the impression that either 1) you have a table of > moral truths; or 2) you are using the words moral and immoral to > describe every action which you like or dislike, approve or disapprove. Try 3) I am using the word "moral" (as opposed to NONmoral, not as in the opposite of IMmoral) to mean "having to do with people's beliefs about right and wrong, esp. w.r.t. beliefs about proper treatment of others". Got it? See the (huge) difference? > There are laws against letting out official/military secrets, what do > you think is the major motivation, morals or self interest? The primary motivation is self interest, BUT crucial to support for such laws is people's (at least implicit) belief that the laws do not wrongfully interfere with free speech, etc. You are probably aware of the current controversy over Reagan's secrecy rules for scientific exchanges of info. Do you deny that the controversy involves moral beliefs? No? Q.E.D.! > remember, people tend to shout the loudest when they have > the least grounds for their propositions I tend to shout when people don't listen. I was hoping the emphasis would get someone to respond to my refutations, vs. ignoring them. Guess what -- it worked! > Even when some actions are immoral, does that [necessarily (-pvt)] > mean that we must passed laws? Did I ever say it does? (hint: NO!) > So give us the legitimate reasons, tell us, according to your moral > truths, how immoral is abortion, is it worth a penalty of ... or ... No deal. My position is not at issue here. The questions are: 1) is imposing morality always wrong? and 2) Can there be such a thing as a law that does not impose morality? And the answer to both is no. > By the way, HER should be HIS. I use "her" as the universal pronoun. I am aware that this is not standard English. --The THIRD side (<-- see that folks?) Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's.